User talk:Buidhe/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Buidhe. 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.

Hi Buidhe,

It seems that you reverted my edits on Armenian genocide. As far as I know, almost all scholar agree that the things that were written in that book (and quote) happened. Therefore, I couldn't grasp why you considered it to be undue. Also, the quotation consisted about 104 words. Could you please explain why you considered it to be an excessive citation. Thank you.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi John the Janitor, the article currently has no blockquotes from secondary sources. You're proposing to add two of them from the same source, which is also published long before the modern era of Armenian genocide scholarship (although the particular content is not especially controversial). In general, quotation should be minimized per MOS:QUOTE and it's not clear what these quotes are adding to reader understanding of the topic. BTW if you have comments on the article in general it is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armenian genocide/archive2. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've shared my opinion on the page you've linked. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

As you've probably seen I've filled all the subheadings on Kemalist historiography . I think it gives a general overview to the subject. Can you give me any advice on how to further develop it? Best regards . --John the Janitor (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

John the Janitor It's looking pretty good! I do think that some of the sources could be used to further expand the article, for example "Arabs in Kemalist Turkish Historiography", "A past to be forgotten? Writing Ottoman history in early republican Turkey" and "Double Discourses and Romantic Nationalism: The Ottoman Empire as a 'Foreign Country'". The book The Making of Modern Turkey has interesting discussion as well, and I have a pdf copy I could send to you. Otherwise you could consider a nomination at WP:GAN. (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you send me the pdf copy. You are so kind. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

John the Janitor You will need to go to this page to send me an email so that I can attach a pdf in reply. (t · c) buidhe 13:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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 hope it flies.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think all is reverted, feel free to follow up. While there may be some circumstances where the extra specification of "German" may be useful, it appears to me to be a manifestation of nationalist resentment rather than an encyclopedic adjustment. I've left a note warning them to stop. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!!! If there is additional disruption I'll ask for move protection. (t · c) buidhe 02:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to ask about your revert to my edits on Theresienstadt Ghetto. Putting people in overcrowded, unhygenic conditions, while also giving them only about 1000 kcal per day^[1] is a deliberate and intentional way to indiscriminately murder prisoners, even if it's less direct than shootings or gas chambers. I contend that the verb "murder" here is accurate.-Ich (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's accurate, but that does not mean it makes for better prose. Scholarly sources are more likely to use "died" in such context. (t · c) buidhe 15:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I understand stylistic objections, even if I disagree here. I want to avoid language that can be misinterpreted by the reader, who – absent the verb "murder" – might wrongly conclude that these deaths "just happened", like a heart attack or famine after a failed harvest, without the malice aforethought/mens rea of murder. I live in Germany and anecdotally, I perceive ermordet ("murdered") to be the verb of choice in newspapers, memorials, and the remembrance culture; this has certainly impacted my word choice in English.-Ich (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT symbols, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black triangle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Too tired to work on it more. Tomorrow, I can replace Collins as a source. I used him because he stated more clearly that Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda weren't defined, but I'm not married to it as a source. SusunW (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully that's done. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On 13 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article C-821/19, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2021, the European Court of Justice ruled that the criminalization of assistance to asylum seekers violated EU law? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/C-821/19. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, C-821/19), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sources on the Sayfo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you reverted an edit on my talk page from an account that was less than a day old asking me to edit some article. Thank you for the reversion, by the way - I wasn’t sure what to do about it so I would've just left it there.

I wanted to ask, is that a bad sign that shady accounts want me to edit for them? This isn’t actually the first time this has happened - I’m afraid I deleted it now, but I received an email a few weeks ago from someone offering to pay me money to "fix up some articles of interest to their organization". Should I be concerned? OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

OlliverWithDoubleL I've received similar spam messages myself. In fact, I only reverted this editor on your talk page because they also left a spam message on my talk page. I'm not sure there's anything you can do about it besides either ignoring it or notifying an admin about the abuse of talk pages and/or email as the case may be so that they can be blocked. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for coordinating the November 2021 New pages patrol backlog drive. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on improving NPP participation (maybe at Elli's?). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On 16 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Birds Aren't Real, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Birds Aren't Real? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Birds Aren't Real. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Birds Aren't Real), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,573 views (964.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I’m noticing that there is a fairly large backlog on Articles for Creation (3 months, >2.8K articles). I understand that you were involved in running the recent NPP backlog drive. I am wondering if you would be willing to help me run an AFC backlog drive at some point in January or February or, if you’d prefer not to help run it, if you have any advice as to how to organize one.

Thank you so much for your time and contributions to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

— Mhawk10 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mhawk10 There was already a recent AfC drive (July 2021) but it was run completely independently of the NPP drive with different scripts. I suggest you get into contact with the organizers of that drive if you want to run another one. (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Prague uprising barricades, May 1945.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) 18:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Holocaust Greece has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, I have finally created this article - I think you were kind enough to look at the draft some months ago. Please do see if there is anything you think should be added and your assistance with the lead, in particular, would be greatly valued. I am proposing to have a go at Switzerland and the Holocaust (and Finland and the Holocaust) at some point and would welcome your input. I did take a look at The Holocaust in the Soviet Union with a view to making it more of an exploration of Soviet policy towards/reception of the Holocaust (so that it is not merely a WP:CFORK of The Holocaust in Ukraine etc.) but I found it extraordinarily difficult to access any sources. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Brigade Piron I think it's reasonable to take the Soviet Union article as an overview of the Holocaust in Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania etc. There are plenty of works that give an overview of all the Soviet countries or a specific aspect common to them (such as Soviet partisans and the Holocaust, Soviet press reports[2][3], Jewish refugees in the Soviet Union[4][5], postwar trials[6][7] etc.).

For cultural aspects, the book by Arkady Zeltser (monuments) is recommended and there are multiple works on Soviet film,[8][9][10] literature, historiography or overall historical culture. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racial misrepresentation 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/Racial misrepresentation 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.

Indigenous girl (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Buidhe! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 01:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 B. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe

Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FactCheckArmenia.com#NPOV. Thank you--217.149.166.11 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Auhtority control and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Template:Auhtority control until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You've previously closed discussions in the Arab-Israeli topic area, but given that you have involved yourself in the content discussions I dont think that is appropriate any longer and respectfully ask that you no longer close discussions (move requests, afds, whatever) in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, stop trying to intimidate another editor. Buidhe is experienced enough to understand when they are or aren’t involved. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously responding to something posted here 20 days ago? I was not intimidating anybody, that message was left very respectfully. Maybe stop trying be a white knight? You really arent as good at it as you think you are. This removed bit was extra silly, but glad you figured that one out by yourself. nableezy - 15:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thank you for your support and great work on Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. DMySon (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe,
Merry Christmas and all very best wishes to you for a Happy New Year in 2022, in good health, joyfulness, and a sense of achievement, including here at the Wiki!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 10:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Richter as “keep” but the AfD counter software is showing this as a “delete” outcome. I think the reason may be that your closing note includes the term “!deletes” in bold. All the best Mccapra (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you requested a move of Israel and the apartheid analogy to Israeli apartheid allegation. Please can you help write Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (allegations). Thanks and have a Merry boxing day! LondonIP (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, do you still intend to copy-edit the article Green Cadres? I noticed you've added {{working}} to its listing at the GOCE Requests page but haven't yet edited the article. If you need any help, feel free to post a note on my talk page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Baffle_gab1978 Absolutely, but the requester has been busy IRL at the moment. When we're able to resolve the outstanding questions regarding my copyedit of his other article 1918 protest in Zagreb, I'll get on the Green Cadres copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 11:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for letting us know. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

On 29 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article International Jewish conspiracy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the leaders of Nazi Germany believed that Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin were puppets of an international Jewish conspiracy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/International Jewish conspiracy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, International Jewish conspiracy), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe, thanks for taking time to review this page move discussion: One of the users provided these statistics for page review numbers: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Malena%7CMal%C3%A8na_(film)%7CMal%C3%A9na_(singer) Don't you think that sudden surge in film page views reflects the fact that people Google the name for singer and end up viewing the film page instead, as Google considers it to be the primary page for Malena? Why else would people suddenly start increasingly viewing the page of an old film? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Armatura the key principle is WP:Primary topic in which long term significance is given more weight than short-term pageview patterns. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, buidhe. How do we prognose the long term significance, though? If it was a recent mainstream / culturally significant / outstanding film, I would not mind, but isn't a 2000 Italian-language erotic film with "rotten" rating on Tomatometre rather a niche to be long-term significant? And is it ok if people searching for a child singer are unintentionally mislead by Google to the erotic film wiki page instead? --Armatura (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The main proposal brought up by participants in the RM is to redirect Maléna to the dab page at Malena, therefore they are arguing that there is no primary topic for this spelling (also see WP:SMALLDIFFS). If you want to relitigate this WP:MR is there for this purpose, but it's unlikely to be overturned as the consensus is pretty strong. (t · c) buidhe 23:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, buidhe, how do I relitigate, could you please explain to somebody who is not very familiar with this process? Thanks. My concern is not this particular or that particular spelling, but the word that is usually searched without any diacritics misleading the casual Google searcher to the film page. --Armatura (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Move review is where you go to challenge move closures (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. Source review at FAC is something I see myself doing once in a while, especially since I have institutional access to paywalled content. Is there some sort of guideline/instruction about it, or should I just "lurk moar" at FAC to learn how it's done? JBchrch talk 10:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch, I'm glad you're interested in source reviewing as it's often a bottleneck for promotion at FAC. In my opinion, there are three elements necessary for a source review:

1. Checking that all sources are "high-quality reliable sources" according to the FA criteria, I'm on the lookout for dodgy websites or publishers, fringy works, inappropriate self-sourcing
2. Checking to make sure the source supports the content. Although technically this is only required for first-time FA nominations, in my opinion it should be done on all FACs because otherwise there is no way to know if the sources confirm the content, original research or close paraphrasing is an issue (not to mention serious issues have been found on some articles of regular contributors).
3. Checking the formatting to make sure it's consistent, for example all the books have locations or none of them, ISBN hyphenation is consistent, either {{sfn}} or {{rp}} footnoting is used, etc.

I'd encourage you to get started and if you're not sure about a review, you can ask me or anyone else who is regularly doing source reviews at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Brianboulton has a guide for this as well: Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll take a look at the essay and try one out shortly! JBchrch talk 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also echo Buidhe that spot-checks should be done on every FAC. I really don't think it counts as a full source review otherwise. Even good editors can run into issues (like a passage has been copyedited so many times that the supporting citation has been disconnected from what it's supporting, etc.) so as a reviewer and submitter I find it helpful to have someone double-checking me. If the spot-check turns up some issues beyond the minor, I do further checks, and if that raises more concerns I oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe,

I noticed you closed this RM. Can you please explain how you evaluated the arguments for and against the proposed move? I took a look at the RM, and at first glance, found the argument to move to be more compelling. Thanks and happy holidays! Courtesy pings to @力: and @Desertambition:, see also this discussion. VR _talk 00:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since that topic is partially reopened, I would just like to clarify one typo; "current name" was intended to read "common name" (Qonce is clearly a current name, but not the common name). BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• My take was similar but different - there was certainly not consensus for a move from the 3 participants in the discussion, but the participation was minimal enough (and the topic controversial enough) a relist would have been helpful. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think undoing the closure and relisting the discussion would be a good idea at this point.VR _talk 00:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Desertambition I closed this as "no consensus" both because both you and Billed Mammal had collected several sources from after the rename. This indicates both names are in common usage and there was no compelling evidence presented as to which was more common. I will reopen on your request, but unless there is new evidence that was not presented in the discussion, the result is likely to be the same. The article titles issue is solely decided based on the criteria at Article titles and it has to do by which names are more used in reliable sources. After renames, it can sometimes take time for the new name to displace the old one so it might make sense to open a new requested move in six months or a year. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

buidhe I appreciate you reopening the discussion but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that you ignored my point about Qonce being featured prominently in every title as opposed to just being mentioned inconsistently within the body of an article. You closed it without discussion. Seemed highly inappropriate. I hope that you can see what I am saying now, because you did not before. Desertambition (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Buidhe, for re-opening the discussion.VR _talk 00:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Buidhe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

I started the formal FA review on The Well of Loneliness, which you edited in the past. Your input there and further contributions to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Buidhe, Happy New Year to you and yours. Hope 2022 will give less Covid-related nuisances. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Btw, given your area of expertise, thought you might be interested in this new article.[11] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the happy new year! I actually was already aware of that article although I did not end up citing it in the Armenian genocide article. (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Was I correct in my identification of the text in Marine sediment as plagiarism? Someone off-wiki disagrees, however, my interpretation of WP:PLAGIARISM is that quotes and an in-text attribution are required for all instances of copying, even public domain sources (as I did so when quoting a sentence from NHC). I do firmly believe though that that article contains an excessive level of copying even if it were attributed in-text and with quotations. Noah^Talk 21:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that unattributed copying of public domain sources is plagiarism in all cases, but I totally agree you were right to fail the article. I would have failed for overdoing images and lack of verifiability (inline citations) in some places, prose and MOS issues. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I mainly quick failed for the cleanup template I added due to the paragraphs and sections of material that were copied and pasted. If I recall, quotes are supposed to be used in a limited manner and interfere with encyclopedic style if they are excessively used. Almost every paragraph with [1] or [2] are purely copied and pasted. I considered it plagiarism due to the level of copy and pasting without in-text attribution and quotes. Large portions of the work are not original. Not sure if others share that same interpretation of plagiarism. Noah^Talk 21:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If large parts of the article are not original, that is likely to cause problems with encyclopedic tone, poor focus, and/or other issues. But I don't see it as a problem in of itself. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

My understanding from While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style is that the MOS explicitly bars using excessive levels of quotations. I will bring up the additional issues you mentioned here as I didn't check for them at that time. Hopefully the article can be improved. Noah^Talk 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Quotations whether inline or block is different than fully integrating the text from the source. WP:CWW for instance is not plagiarism even though you are copying the text from elsewhere. The problem is that external sources are less likely to be compatible with Wikipedia style. (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the expectation of original text from the editors. It's frowned upon to use excessive quotes/copying no matter where they originate. Noah^Talk 22:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Would {{One source|section|date=January 2022}} apply in this case for these sections? Noah^Talk 04:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, if you think that the single source is hampering adherence to NPOV or some other Wikipedia policy or guideline. (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Was just curious. I'm not going to do anything else since they clearly want to hang me at this point. I asked them to renom if they disagree about the failing and any of the issues mentioned. I don't consider a single source on dozens of paragraphs to be reliable. I believe it tampers with the comprehensiveness of the article. Clearly they dont see anything mentioned as an issue, so I just told them to renom and consider this review finished. Noah^Talk 04:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Politics of resentment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radical right.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, why did you cancel my edit? I added an authorized source in order to substantiate a claim made in the article. Wikipedia's credibility depends on these sources. Ehud Amir (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ehud Amir I am not sure what you mean by an "authorized source"? What matters is WP:reliable sources. The sentence in the article, "Some communities and individuals, particularly from Moravia, brought their Torah scrolls, Shofar, tefillin, and other religious items with them to the ghetto." is backed up by Rothkirchen 2006, which is certainly a reliable source, but the source you replaced it with does not contain all this information since it just discusses Shofar. (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not replace any source, nor deleted any. I only added one. But do as you wish. Have a good day. Ehud Amir (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

On 5 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lesbians in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that lesbians in Nazi Germany, unlike gay men, did not face systematic persecution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lesbians 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, Lesbians in Nazi Germany), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,123 views (1,260.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I’m not totally sure of how they specifically manipulate our software, i have an idea but I can’t say I know for sure, I have titled this entry with something intentionally ambiguous, I’d try as much possible to ask you a question without talking too much, does the relevant magic word force articles to be instantaneously indexed in the google search engine even when the articles weren't created by an editor with Autopatrol or marked as reviewed by an NPR holder? Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea :( (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there - just letting you know that I reverted a change you made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimun_XIX_Benyamin per the recent conversation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayfo#Nimrud.

Thanks for working towards improving the articles about Assyrians. The back and forth in the talk page in no way takes away from all your contributions to the article on Sayfo. 2600:1010:B010:22FD:7D0A:BB0F:59DC:FE50 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 16 reviews between October and December 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there Buidhe,

I created an article a while ago. It got deleted, and although I had created it in good faith and contained some sources, the fact of the matter is that it did not meet wiki guidelines, so it got deleted last year, which is fair enough.

I have come across an article that is a piece of unsourced fantasy, about a skirmish that has been transformed into a fantasy battle. There are five reasons why this should be deleted, but nobody is prepared to take the time to read the deletion request and make comment. Is this because of the time of the year? It has been relisted twice, and has garnered little interest. The process is failing, as I see it, but it is dependent upon people giving up their free time to do this, and reading dubious articles is not everyone's idea of a great way to spend leisure time, granted.

There does appear to be a few articles that he created that are about real life events where others have been able to turn them into source-based encyclopaedic articles. A lot of the other articles he created appear to be fantasy articles written by this user with an indefinite suspension from wikipedia. How does it get flagged that one user with an agenda has created a swathe of POV fantasy content that is not in keeping with the principles of wikipedia. You seem pretty experienced, so I thought I would approach you. Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Keith H99, It looks like the one AfD you've started recently is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 13 December 1814? This is actually more commented than the average AfD. It frequently occurs that it takes more than 1 week to gain consensus for deletion, but judging from the !votes the article is likely to be deleted or redirected. I'd be the first one to agree that AfD has a strong element of randomness and that low participation can lead to outcomes that are not consistent with policies and guidelines, but so far no one has come up with a better way of deciding whether to delete articles.

Ultimately, the only way that hoax and non-notable articles are going to be detected is by someone who comes along, notices the problem, and tries to clean it up. There's no limit to the number of AfD's you can have open at once, so I suggest you start nominating for deletion any other non-notable articles you find and nominating them for deletion. You could also try WP:PROD if you don't think the deletion is likely to be contested.

In addition, while almost no AfDs last more than 2 to 3 weeks, many other areas of Wikipedia have a longer backlog. For example, it's not unusual for Good Articles to await review for multiple months; New Page Patrol backlog goes back to July last year. The volunteer aspect makes all these backlogs harder to combat. (t · c) buidhe 23:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, thank you for sharing your experience.

The article I authored had two votes for deletion within 24 hours. It had been my expectation that there would be a similar lead time when I made an AfD submission. Thank you for realigning my expectations.

Whilst I have spent tens of hours cleaning up the handful of articles that were created about genuine occurrences, I had not realized that similar fantasy articles can be also submitted through the AfD process. Thanks! Keith H99 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Röhm scandal 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 Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First homosexual movement 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 Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First homosexual movement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many Germans' belief that homosexuality was a communicable disease limited the success of the first homosexual movement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First homosexual movement. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, First homosexual movement), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

On 15 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Acquired homosexuality, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that belief that homosexuality can be acquired has motivated Nazi persecution, discriminatory age-of-consent laws, censorship of LGBT publications and employment discrimination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Acquired homosexuality. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Acquired homosexuality), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Good morning! I noticed, with respect to this CfD discussion that you closed, that the tags on the category pages have not been removed yet. Would you want to take care of that as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Marco, now dealt with. I forgot that the CfD tool does not always remove the boilerplate. (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

On 16 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Röhm scandal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as a result of the Röhm scandal, a Nazi became the world's first openly gay politician in 1932? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Röhm scandal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Röhm scandal), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany 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 Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

On 17 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Memorial to the First Homosexual Emancipation Movement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 120 years after the founding of the world's first homosexual organization in 1897, a monument near its former headquarters (pictured) was unveiled in Berlin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Memorial to the first homosexual emancipation movement. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Memorial to the First Homosexual Emancipation Movement), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Accidentally clicked your contributions page, so regarding Draft:Criminalization of homosexuality, this may interest you. For Crompton's space - late 1970s to 1980 gay research - it was unorthodox. I am unsure of how its historical claims have held up since then, but a quick look at papers that have cited it, it seems to be accurate. (It certainly interested me when I first came into contact with it - for reasons.) Urve (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Urve! I have read similar claims about the occasional trial or execution of lesbians in the Middle Ages in other sources, so I think it is potentially a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they happened; my only real concern is about the scope of his claims. (For example, him saying that "The idea of lesbianism as a capital crime had certainly taken root in the popular imagination by this time" is something I can't judge, and wouldn't trust him with.) Homosexuality and Civilization has been criticized for its datedness in light of new evidence, so the specific details here may be questionable - but in any case, it's some sad reading. Good luck with the review of the Röhm scandal and continuing work on the draft. Urve (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly, I just saw the DYK nomination. There is a small matter to be addressed here before I feel comfortable approving it. No rush. Urve (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Enforced disappearances in Bangladesh to Category:Forced disappearances in Bangladesh Hugo999 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, I'm considering bringing The Shadow (magazine) to FAC at some point, and wondered if you had time to express an opinion on one of the images. This is the first cover for the magazine; I have it uploaded with a FUR as the issue is still in copyright. However, that artwork was in use on a 1919 magazine, as can be seen here -- a shadow has been added, and the background changed to white. Would you consider that the 1931 version is sufficiently original that a FUR is necessary, or do you think I could upload it to Commons on the basis that the original from 1919 is clearly out of copyright? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie Not sure, maybe Nikkimaria would know. Another possibility is that the copyright for the 1931 issue (and likely, other issues) was not renewed, which would make the 1931 cover public domain. (t · c) buidhe 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Street & Smith were diligent about their copyright renewals, and it was definitely renewed. Nikki, what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: not a lawyer). If the only changes were the background colour and the cropping out of the cross thing at the bottom right of the 1919 work, this would be clearly not original enough to warrant copyright protection. The shadow is a bit trickier because it could be argued that that requires a minimal degree of creativity. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's right on the border, I guess. You could argue that the shadow is defined by the shape, so there's no originality in the shape, I suppose. I think I'll leave it as it is and not try to upload it on Commons. Thanks for the opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It was Guy Macon's wish to see me me learn a programming language, two questions what programming language did you learn and secondly what in your opinion is the best programming language to learn? Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007 I actually did my first programming in Java (I've also used C, C++, Python, and some others), but I would recommend starting with Python—it's one of the easiest languages and there are a lot of online guides. (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speedily rename subcategories of Category:Enforced disappearances by country e.g. Category:Forced disappearances in Argentina to Category:Enforced disappearances in Argentina to align with the parent category per C2C. Hugo999 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Buidhe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy New Year Buidhe!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, I saw that you changed the title of Deportations of Kurds last year[12]. However, I do think we need to specify the country since Kurds have also experienced deportation elsewhere (Iraq and USSR). Would you support the title being Deportations of Kurds (Turkey)? --Semsûrî (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you might be right that some kind of dab page might be best for "deportation of Kurds" per the Google Scholar results[13] but I think natural disambiguation (and likely WP:SINGULAR) is the right approach here. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of a natural title but Deportation of Kurds (1916–1934) should be fine imo. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe. You posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests last month requested a copy-edit of First homosexual movement. However I noticed that a GA review of the article recently began, so I was wondering whether you still wanted the article copy-edited? Rublov (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Rublov Yes. I think the article's prose is good enough for GAN but I'm hoping to take the article to FAC in the future. Also, while Shushugah agreed to take it on, the GA review has not yet began, and I believe that they would wait until the copyedit is done. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will alert Shushugah. I'll start the copy-edit now, and I ought to be able to finish in within the next 12 hours. Rublov (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy-edit done. I left some comments on the talk page. Rublov (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Screen Shot 2022-01-23 at 7.37.54 PM.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)