Due to repeatedly receiving unsolicited email from a number of Wikipedia accounts, I've had to disable the feature. If you want me to make edits for you, be warned that I am not a meatpuppet. However, if you have a legitimate reason to email me, please post on this page and I'll enable it temporarily.
On a more positive note, I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.


A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Citation Barnstar
For your extensive sourcing, most notably at Armenian Genocide Denial, I've not seen a similar reference section so far. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocidal rape Page Double genocide theory pushingEdit

It seems like somebody put the Red army Rapes as Genocidal rape? But the red army was not trying to genocide the Germans in the page history it looks like somebody copied and pasted it from war rape. None of sources used for the Red army rape on the page say its Genocidal rape as it was Copied and pasted from Rape during the occupation of Germany on the page.85.163.4.89 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&diff=859962306&oldid=859918790

If you look on the talk page or the page history somebody's trying to push the Double genocide theory.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocidal_rape/Archive_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.163.4.89 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests regarding Fringe theories and advocacy with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armenian Genocide denial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthesis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Military Historian of the YearEdit

  2020 Military Historian of the Year
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2020 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts throughout the year. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

Empire AS Talk! 18:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for opinionEdit

New year Greetings;

I had opened a discussion @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity; one of the answer there I received is fallacy of appeal to popularity won't apply since matter is of tautology.

I thought it would be batter to seek more opinions from those who have edited articles related to List of fallacies and since your edit @ In-group favoritism got denoted in related edits requesting your opinion if you could form any and feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Image deletion - Picture of Frances Gertrude McGillEdit

Hello Buidhe -- I hope your new year is off to a good start! I wanted to ask your advice about a recent image deletion on WikiCommons. You gave me a very helpful image review for my FAC nomination of Frances Gertrude McGill last month, in which you said the main portrait image of McGill (and other remaining images) had adequate licensing. However, an editor apparently nominated the portrait image for deletion on Dec. 24th [1], and it has since been removed. Is there any way to argue for its recovery, or is it a lost cause? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Alanna the Brave I am not terribly familiar with Canadian copyright law and how it interacts with US law, but Wikiacc seems to have a valid point, as far as I know. Perhaps you could try discussing with them, otherwise Wikipedia:Deletion review is an option. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty -- I may take a shot at that. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with harassmentEdit

Dear Buidhe. Happy New Year! I do not know you but I can see you have kindly listed yourself as admin who is willing to deal with harassment. Could you please have a look at this thread in particular and this talk page in general and see whether there is a pattern of harassment, denial of harassment and mocking the harassed one from any particular user? I am an involved editor, and I need an uninvolved admin to make an independent assessment, please. Many thanks. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura, I am not an admin, I cannot help you with this, I'm afraid. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Stefan IhrigEdit

 On 5 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stefan Ihrig, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to historian Stefan Ihrig, the Nazis sought to emulate Turkey, which they viewed as a "postgenocidal paradise"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stefan Ihrig. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stefan Ihrig), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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) 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Rwandan genocide case request withdrawn by filing partyEdit

The case request Rwandan genocide has been withdrawn by the filing party. The comments made by the arbitrators details arbitrators thoughts on the case request. A permanent link to the case request can be viewed through this wikilink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

MacclesfieldEdit

Hi, I saw you just did the move for Macclesfield Football Club but can I ask if you can revert it? I am sorry for an oversight on my part, I've only just realised that the page was actually hijacked as it was originally for an Aussie rules club but the editor removed what was there and replaced it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

File licensing helpEdit

I'd like to be able to add File:Price Raid (cropped).jpg to Second Battle of Newtonia, since a non-map image has been requested in the ACR. It's obviously PD (produced in 1865 and the artist died in 1914), but the Commons image page currently lacks a PD US template, and I'm not sure what the best one to use is. Would the PD-US-expired one work? (I'm not sure if the production of the painting/sketch counts as publishing, or if I need to try to track it down in a pre-1926 book). Or can something be PD in the US specifically because the producer of it has been dead for enough years? Hog Farm Bacon 02:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hog Farm: I think the current licensing is OK. Hirtle chart notes that unpublished works with a "Known author with a known date of death [expire] 70 years after the death of author." It was also probably publicly displayed at some point which would count as publication, and therefore PD due to time since publication. But I'm not as picky as Nikkimaria when it's obvious that the work is out of copyright. (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. I'll be adding it. Hog Farm Bacon 04:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terminology of the Armenian Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entente.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

admiraltyEdit

I think you've jumped the gun there with the move and the updating. Looking at the number and type of articles pointing to Admiralty, the British entity seems the primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • GraemeLeggett I found a large number of pages using formulations like "British [[Admiralty]]", "[[United Kingdom|British]] [[Admiralty]]", "[[Admiralty|British Admiralty]]" and worse. If the clarification is necessary, it's probably not the primary topic. (t · c) buidhe 12:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
that didn't come up on the talkpage. and doesn't sound a good way to establish primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
In situations like those Buidhe quotes above British is an adjective, not part of the name. I think the close was precipitate given both the lack of evidence and the lack of participation. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur the notifications were not of the required standard, the failure to realise the move might be controversial was inappropriate and the execution has been of the move and follow up has been poor. These are not the standards and example I would have expected of a person with administrator/sysop privileges. If this was not such a high impact it would have been rolled back. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe, with all due respect, your statement makes it sound more like a supervote than a neutral closure. In closing, it's really not your place to decide what is and is not a primary topic. It's merely to assess the opinions expressed by other editors, and to leave a discussion open long enough to get a reasonable number of contributions. This clearly did not have anywhere near enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with the accusations of improper close. No admin is a mind-reader and we can't expect them to magically know what will be controversial, especially since the old title was quite irregular (using a common word for a single country's government department) and only three people participated. If Naval and United Kingdom Wikiprojects aren't aware that these discussions are happening, we have a deeper problem than one administrator. BTW, Buidhe, you tagged the close as nac and I'm confused. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "only three people participated". Precisely. Therefore it clearly should have been relisted to garner further opinions, especially given it was over the New Year period when many of us are doing things other than looking at Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--

In view of vagueness of the above ANI notice and the fact I have just spent part of by life following it to see if it related to the Admiralty DAB/move issues I would like to point out it relates to concerns of disruptiving editing by others on the In Praise of Blood article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize if I should have done that when I left the notice. I was racing to leave a bunch of notices at the time. Buidhe created an NPOV article on a controversial topic, I reviewed it for DYK... but what happened next will AMAZE you. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021Edit

You have a nasty habit of edit warring. If you make a bold edit, and are reverted, do not edit war. What it is about WP:EDIT WAR and WP:BRD that you don't understand. Please be warned, that I will show precisely zero tolerance for your recidivist behavior. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Debresser BRD explicitly states that you have to give a reason for undoing an edit that explains why you think the previous version is better. You have yet to do so with regard to the Citizenship article. (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it not clear to you that I think your edit is not an improvement? That should be clear enough, and that is enough reason to revert. Now you must discuss and not edit war. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I probably should apologize. Which I do hereby. I should have seen that your edit was an improvement. Which does not mean I agree with you regarding the behavioral issue, but that just became moot. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CitizenshipEdit

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

Points to note:

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

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

Deportation of the Crimean TatarsEdit

It seems like some one is trying to say its a genocide but the sources say its a cultural genocide in put on this?.47.39.113.155 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars&action=history The crime did happen that is fact.

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 38 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Marriage in the Republic of Ireland" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Marriage in the Republic of Ireland. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Marriage in the Republic of Ireland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bogger (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Turks in Germany disputeEdit

Hi Buidhe, thank you for weighing in on this discussion[2], both me and someone else have responded to your request for further data. Can you weigh in further so we can reach consensus? Me and Sseevv are in a bit of a deadlock, do you agree with my motion to relegate the higher estimates to the main body of the article? Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RE Talk:Deportation of the Crimean TatarsEdit

Your comment here showing how "the word 'genocide' is that it has become a value-laden term" is unfortunately very true and that just because something is not called genocide, it does not mean it was any less tragic or awful. On the other hand, calling something a genocide just because one cherrypick sources saying it was one, with no clear academic sources explayining what the academic consensus is, just dilutes it. Also, did no one notice that here, they used Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty when it "was founded as an anti-communist propaganda source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe"? And I do not see how this source stating three countries recognized it as genocide the be-all and end-all, certainly not to state it in the very first sentence as a genocide; and as you correctly noted, cultural genocide is not the same thing as genocide. I write you also because they referred to Alexander Statiev as essentially a genocide denialist (used in a clearly pejorative way, as the two comments from both users show here, not as a legitimate scholar arguing it was not a genocide) for this article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Genocide Research. Unless I am missing something, it is very scary that one can act like there is consensus among experts something was a genocide (the same way the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust and other undisputed events as genocide among experts) and then accuse both users and scholars to be "genocide denialists." The onus is on them to provide it represents the consensus of scholars rather than cherrypicking sources supporting either view and then stating either as fact or as academic consensus. It should be very easy to prove, if true.

The same user also strawmanned me here. I do not see how one can read this and falsely imply I posted "a typical revisionist rant with ridiculous claims like liberal philosopher John Locke being just as bad as Lenin and Stalin (who personally ordered extrajudicial killing of nearly a million of people during Great Purge), that dictator Augusto Pinochet was a liberal, that mass killings by Communist states are not a fact and other things like that." Are Davies, Fitzpatrick, Getty, Wheatcroft et al. Stalinist apologists? I also never stated that "liberal philosopher John Locke being just as bad as Lenin and Stalin" (I believe I am just consistent in opposing capitalist, Nazi, Soviet and any other group or nation's crimes while they support the equivalency between Communism and Nazism, whcih incidentally is "a typical revisionist rant with ridiculous claims" going back to Nolte) and I clearly stated that killings under Communist regimes indeed happened and are a fact but the attempt of some authors to lump them together as we do in the controversial Mass killings under communist regimes (the less said, the better)[nb 1] is a concept while they implied and falsely accused me of being a denialist or "revisionist."

References

  1. ^ I still wish you could do a legitimate draft of Victims of Communism as rewrite of the article.

Sorry for writing you this but I really respect you as a Wikipedian and trust your neutral judgement. So is this just my impression or were their comments correct? I do not think I never implied what they think I did; I also stated right from the start "[t]his is just a slippery and a reductio ad absurdum just to show ... how slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum your comment and proposal was in the first place." I thought Communist-related articles were the big problem but I think these about genocide and mass killings are too and cherrypicked rather than reflect the consensus of academics and experts, or their lack thereof. This would not be a big problem if our policies and guidelines were actually followed and respected and RfC et al. would be based on the strength of arguments backed by academic consensus (or lack thereof) and reliable sources (not cherrypicked ones). They have not only become a vote (the exact thing they should not be) but they have become partisan votes rather than neutral arguments backed by academic consensus and literature, something that you have shown to actually follow. Seriously, is this just me? Davide King (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Davide King Unfortunately, there are some topics where certain individuals hold strong, preconceived viewpoints that aren't amenable to change based on what reliable sources say. There's not much you can do about it unfortunately. Similar issue at the Greek genocide article where there is cherrypicking and biased presentation intimating that there is a consensus that this event was a genocide that inspired the Holocaust (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've actually had considerable success with RfC rather than fruitless discussions with a couple editors, if you are thoughtful about how you lay it out you can often draw in uninvolved editors who will see that your version is better-founded. But I'm not sure that would be helpful in this case. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In appreciationEdit

  The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the 123 reviews you carried out for the Military History Project in 2020. This work is very much appreciated and one shudders to think where the Project would be without your efforts. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I had no idea I'd done so many. (t · c) buidhe 23:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
That is just the ones with a MilHist tag on. Goodness knows what the total total is. Er, I mean, no, you've hardly done any. Start pulling your weight.   Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Esat UrasEdit

 On 14 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Esat Uras, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Esat Uras, a major perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, later wrote "the ur-text of Turkish denialist 'scholarship'"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Esat Uras. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Esat Uras), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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) 00:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for International Conference on the Holocaust and GenocideEdit

 On 14 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Turkey threatened that Jewish lives would be put in danger if the 1982 International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, which covered the Armenian Genocide, was not cancelled? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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) 12:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Francoist Spain and the HolocaustEdit

Inspired by your excellent article on Turkey, I've destubbed the article Francoist Spain and the Holocaust. If you get the chance to give it a look over at some point, I'd be grateful! I am certainly not an expert on the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! If you have a minute, could you also add a brief summary to International response to the Holocaust#Turkey? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Brigade Piron Sure, I'll do that. Your input may be helpful on Talk:Turkey and the Holocaust where another editor is arguing for the inclusion of Stanford Shaw (basically a work of fiction) and arguing that Varlık Vergisi is not an anti-Jewish law. (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm tempted to have a go at an article on Sweden and the Holocaust too. Ideally it'd be great to have a series of similar articles dealing with Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan which I know have been covered at some length in the scholarly literature. We are still missing an article on The Holocaust in the Netherlands (currently a redirect) but that's a rather more demanding subject than I can manage. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently there is an entire book called "Early Holocaust Memory in Sweden"[3]... Good luck! (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Te Araroa (disambiguation)Edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Te Araroa (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

ohEdit

Oh, I see you're really active in editing Holocaust-related articles. Well that's a coincidence.OneOffUserName (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jens-Christian WagnerEdit

 On 16 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jens-Christian Wagner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that memorial director Jens-Christian Wagner blames Alternative for Germany for the increase in heckling at former Nazi concentration camps in recent years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jens-Christian Wagner. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jens-Christian Wagner), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In Praise of BloodEdit

  Hello! Your submission of In Praise of Blood 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! SL93 (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing hooksEdit

I thought it was proper to edit hooks. And the one in question did call out for those inlines.

User:Casliber - since I see you above - am I wrong? Ty.

--2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I prefer if my proposed hooks are not edited. Although it wouldn't be wrong to link Armenian Genocide and antisemitism in Turkey in that one, such linking may draw clicks away from the featured article. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe the featured article is bolded. Beyond that, I believe it is our goal to aid the reader. With normal wp inlining. That trumps trying to drive up the click number, to hit some magic number.
Your second link btw was better than mine, of course.
And I am still asking if there is a rule against editing hooks. I thought not. And that there was not "ownership". But perhaps Casliber knows. Ty. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There has been discussion on this in the past. Years ago I'd have had the three links in the hook, but more recently people have felt more srtongly about fewer links. I never had a strong enough opinion to push the point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Best practicesEdit

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Is_the_term_War_crime_neutral?_Should_it_be_referenced? you may be interested in to get community's input on what best practices would be in this case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Pearls before swine" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pearls before swine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Pearls before swine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Private communications with author of IPOBEdit

Buidhe, this suggests that private communications between you and the author of IPOB may have taken place: [4]. If so, please disclose them to me. Given the potentially sensitive content, you may use my email address if necessary. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Saflieni I did not receive any private communications. My email address is disabled, as you can tell. I directed her to an administrator.[5] (t · c) buidhe 09:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Interesting. So they had email contact and the next day he blocked me without disclosing that information. Thanks.Saflieni (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
      • That is probably because EdJohnston blocked you for reasons that had zero to do with Judi Rever and 100% to do with PAs and a continuing failure to WP:LISTEN. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Microsoft Store (disambiguation)Edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Microsoft Store (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion supportEdit

Greetings,

Please do have a look at Draft:Turkish textbook controversies and do help article expansion if topic interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Susan ThomsonEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Susan Thomson 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! AviationFreak💬 03:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Jupiter FAREdit

Hello. The Jupiter article review could use another opinion what do you think of the how the article is written. Can you understand it as a layman? LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Minnesota HistoryEdit

Want to say: your welcome. I think I have very nearly completed the damage I going to inflict on Wikipedia. Along the way most all the comments I have run into have been either smart, snide, or both, so yours was a surprise. I happen to know a little Minnesota military history so it was easy. Fort Snelling, Fort Ridgely, Fort Ripley, and St. Paul were the other Minnesota efforts. Thank you again.Mcb133aco (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I put your comment on my talk page so you will be getting a notice from Wikipedia. Its as good as a Barnstar in my book.Thank you againMcb133aco (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I would guess that you are a member of the Minnesota project while I am not. I will give this to you to share as you see fit. In editing Fort Snelling I came across the word Bdote. It is being used in place of Mendota. I used the word M'dota and that did not go well. After a great deal of reading I can not find that word or spelling in the historical record until after 2005. I have gone to the Native American Dept. @ U of M, reached out to the Shakopee Mdewakanton, Mendota Mdewakanton, Lower Sioux @ Morton and the MHS about the use on Bdote in place of Mendota and none have replied. The online Dakota Dictionary lists Mendota as a "secondary" spelling of B'dote. John March the first school teacher at the Fort in 1820s made a Dakota Dictionary as did the Pond brothers in the 1830s. No one is citing their work for the word. The MHS started adding the word to their signage at the Fort Snelling Park in 2017 I believe and now do not use the word Mendota. I specifically asked the MHS when the word Bdote is first found in the historical record. No reply. The use of the word Bdote should have at least a qualifier explaining its use in the Fort Snelling article. MHS has now published several works with the word in the title. Without previous publication I think the MHS fits the description of a self publisher by Wikipedia standards. The MHS has a mandate to preserve history not be an revisionist or activist repository. Another editor informed me that Dakota is a "living" Language. That may be true, history is history and Mendota is in the record Bdote is not until the MHS added it.Mcb133aco (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Mcb133aco, I'm actually from Seattle and have only been to Minnesota once, and I'm not involved in the wikiproject. I noticed your work because I keep an eye on featured article reviews.
  • As for names, there are alternate dialects, spellings, and orthographies for many Native American languages, and it's quite possible that the same Dakota word could be spelled B'dote or M'dota depending on the dialect or orthography used. I checked MHS (I assume you mean Minnesota Historical Society?) and it's definitely a legitimate institution, not a self-published source like a personal blog. I would say they are reliable for this type of information. (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:League of Legends loreEdit

 

Hello, Buidhe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "League of Legends lore".

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) 23:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you deleting images in commons???Edit

I'm talking about the Holocaust in Libya. You already caused one image to be removed and nominated another one for deletion. At least are you planning to replace them or what? It's not an improvement of the article, you know.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, Avoiding copyvio is important. In order to use an image we have to show that it is available under a free license. If that cannot be shown, images should be removed. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Those images are from Yad Vashem for the public. Also they were taken in the 40s! (which means they are under free licence anyway, since more than 70 years have passed since the pictures were taken).--Watchlonly (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Watchlonly, That's not how it works. In most European countries it is 70 years since the photographer died, or if the photographer is unknown 70 years since *publication* (rather than creation). The origin country for these photographs is certainly not Israel so Israeli copyright law is irrelevant. (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  Thanks, Buidhe, I am glad to be working with you. I mostly edit BLPs (or other biographies) so IPOB has been a difficult experience. Gratefully! HouseOfChange (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

  • New EBSCO collections now available
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
  • Library Card input requested
  • Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)