User talk:Buidhe/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

AFDs

When an article is up for an AfD you cannot remove the tag. You MUST PARTICIPATE in the discussion. It has not been created yet but it will be as it is posted where it will be. Reverting it again can be determined to be an edit war. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò 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/Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC

Your revert of my attempt to discuss

I am taking it to mean that you do not stand by your revert of my tagging and will be replacing the citation needed tag. The sentence that follows the one in question is indeed cited, but that source fails verification. If you do not want to do as my tagging suggests, then fine, but the referencing in that article mostly fails RS and the attention of other editors needs to be drawn to the article. Please note that both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide fall under the contentious topic guidelines. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on your comments above I have little faith in your ability to edit articles to accurately reflect what the sources say. The sources cited in that article are fine, although I don't really care about it anymore. You don't seem to even be able to correctly leave a contentious topics notice. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
i can but why would I? You have marked yourself as aware. As for your claim that I am not competent to judge RS, may I ask what you base this on specifically? Please. If there is something I am not seeing here, please explain it to me. Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is LilianaUwU (yes, really). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Armenian genocide and the Holocaust

With respect to your revert there, what was it you were trying to do exactly? I can't tell from your edit summary and suspect a misclick Elinruby (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby not a misclick. See the "debating genocide" chapter. Why have you added a failed verification tag when on the cited page it literally says "There can be no doubt, from the evidence I have presented in the previous chapters, that the Nazis knew of and were (at least in part) inspired by the Armenian Genocide." (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring this question. The source is on the same topic alright but the source does not support your text when read as a whole. There is a very big however that follows the quoted statement. It also says nothing about the 1920, the German press, or any decisions that undefined nationalists might have made. At least not on p. 333. In addition, he does not "conclude" this, as the sentence you quote is not his conclusion. It is X in an argument that seems to go "while X, and also Y, the parallels are unmistakable." Maybe he goes into the press and so on earlier in the book; that would be just fine if cited to that page. Also FYI I removed the 4-5 citations to Jewish Virual Library per thisRfC Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Elinruby The content about the great genocide debate is covered elsewhere in Ihrig's book, a different page number should be cited for it. As for the conclusion about the Nazis being inspired by the Armenian genocide, if you don't believe it is supported by the cited source I suggest posting on WP:NORN to see if this view has any merit. What JVL cites? (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
yes, the correct page number needs to be cited. Hadn't thought of NORN. Re JVL, if that's confusing. let me double-check that. I edited several aricles about the Holocaust in Armenia last night. My main point however about that was just to inform you -- I also missed the RfC at the time, and did not know this until it was pointed out to me. Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Aha, that was at History of the Jews in Armenia. I see you have never edited it; perhaps you would like to, if you are interested in the topic, as there are also cites there to genealogy projects and Armenian weeklies that look questionable. I left those for the moment so as not to tag bomb it too harshly. In any event, please feel free to remove the failed verification tag on Armenian genocide and the Holocaust once it has been addressed. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
???? There was no Holocaust in Armenia. It was never occupied by any of the Axis powers. (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Um? I am unsure what you are saying. I am looking at articles on the period and Armenia has come up in a couple of places. Let me try this again.
  1. The JVL references were in another article, in which you may be interested. Or not, your call.
  2. You should not have deleted the cn tag on the unsourced statement, so I have replaced it.
  3. The citation for the next sentence, to which you referred me, does not substantiate the sentence it follows, or the one before it on which I placed the cn tag.
  4. The tags can be removed when the problems are corrected.
Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Buidhe. Thank you.)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

  • New partner:
    • Perlego
  • Library access tips and tricks
  • Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Million Award for The Holocaust

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring The Holocaust (estimated annual readership: 2,810,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

How is this not a vital article? Much thanks for your work on this! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I see the vital article banner is in with the WikiProjects. Thanks again. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please relist

Can you please revert your close and relist at Talk:Federal government of the United States#Requested move 19 May 2023? You closed a few hours after I made my plea. I’d like to see some discussion on the point I made. Thanks. В²C ☎ 07:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Japanese nationalist editor - Please help

I was RC patrolling and found a bunch of pretty explicit Japanese Nationalist and Yamato Supremacist content on Soh Ohba and tried to remove it but an IP just put it back up. Its not strict vandalism so I can't just take it back down without violating 3rr. I am still relatively new to wikipedia and am not very well versed in the nuances of WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, etc and honestly I don't have the emotional energy to deal with this properly, but just ignoring it would damage the integrity of the project. I am reaching out to you because of your presence on the Nazi Affiliation task force, and as its subject area is tangential to these issues I am hoping that you are more knowledgeable and better equipped (and willing) to deal with this. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

FenrisAureus I know little about Japan but it looks like the additions can easily be reverted as unsourced BLP. You can warn the IP and then report them at WP:EWN or alternatively request page protection at WP:RPP which is a pretty reliable way to get admin attention. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thanks! — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Poland

Are you going to fix the numerous reference errors you have introduced into The Holocaust in Poland? DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a script I was trying to use to fix it but sadly it's not working at the moment. (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Overcat?

At History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II - Category: War crimes of the Wehrmacht. Should it be removed? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Khirurg

Hello! Thank you for your response on the ANI. I think you need to take a look in the article of Albania. Even thought you agreed with me about the disputed content, the user is again reverting and denying any decision made by you. I think a sanction would not be inappropriate. Of course, that is up to you. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record: Some days ago I've reported the user Khirurg on the ANI. (So you know what I'm talking about) AlexBachmann (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for The Holocaust

On 5 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Holocaust, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that around 1,500 anti-Jewish laws were enacted by Nazi Germany in the years leading up to the Holocaust (victims pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Holocaust. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Holocaust), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

June songs
my story today

Thank you for that excellent improvement of the article! It's also featured on Portal:Germany--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Image licensing on the Commons

Hi there, dropping by because another editor recently drew my attention to this discussion, specifically the portion about image licensing. I wanted to clarify that PD-US is not a requirement for all images on the Commons; rather it’s one of many legitimate licenses for the Commons. It means that an image has no US copyright restrictions whatsoever. But some restrictions are compatible with use on the Commons and thus other WMF sites, like several Creative Commons licenses. Many Flickr images can be imported for instance despite not being in the public domain, because the person who retains copyright has licensed them for CC reuse. In general problems only arise if the license cited is not accurate to the image; my understanding is that if the Commons offers a license to apply to an image, that’s because the Commons has deemed that license sufficient basis for hosting such images. Hope that’s helpful. CCing The History Wizard of Cambridge who may wish to know. Cheers, Innisfree987 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers @Innisfree987, that is very good to know. When @Buidhetold me that all images needed to be PD-US, I was terrified because I very often use the PD-UK-Unknown tag. Because my specialist area is the British Empire in the 20th century, I use this tag quite often. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The History Wizard of Cambridge I apologize for what I wrote, which was misleading. CC licensed images are OK (if there is compatible licensing) because they have been freely licensed by the copyright holder. Images that are PD-UK but not PD-US (or freely licensed by the copyright holder) are not okay, certainly not in enwiki, because our servers are located in the US and we have to comply with US copyright law. Admittedly there are some commons users who believe that if an image is PD in one country but not the US it should be allowed on commons unless there is a takedown request, but that does not mean such images are ok to use on enwiki. Similarly, there are a lot of outright copyvios on commons and you may not use those either. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@Buidhe you're the first editor in my three years of editing wikipedia to tell me I can't use PD-UK-Unknown. Why does the tag even exist on wiki if I can't use it? You must be mistaken, unless you can show me otherwise. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The History Wizard of Cambridge PD-UK-unknown is an acceptable tag, but not by itself; because images must also be PD in the US to be acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Examples of relevant tags would be

,

This file is believed to be out of copyright in its home country, as well as the US. If this is confirmed when checked, it should be copied to Wikimedia Commons, unless the file is tagged {{Keep Local}} ,

etc. This is not my opinion, it is stated clearly in WP:Copyrights ("The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law.") and other policy and guideline pages. (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust in Poland

I wanted to raise one point, as I see that you are involved in the re-write of the Holocaust in Poland article. I think that in the Background section it should be mentioned that for a time Poland was a shelter to Jews who were being persecuted and expelled from other parts of Europe. I raise this issue not to sugar-coat the history of Jews in Poland, but this was a legitimate reason why so many Jews ended up in Poland by the end of the middle-ages, eventually leading to the later events of the 20th century. However, I don't want to jump in and start re-writing the section and instead allow others to clean up the text first, but I do think this fact explains why such an exodus from western Europe to Poland happened in the first place, and there are numerous sources which cover this topic. E-960 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

E-960 While I'm not necessarily opposed to including such content, one must also consider balance; most of the sources specifically about the Holocaust in Poland that cover background information focus on the interwar period, so that should receive more wp:weight. Also, the cited YIVO source also suggests also that these migrations had multiple causes including economic reasons. (t · c) buidhe 18:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral example

Hello, Buidhe,

I don't think that this AFD discussion was a good candidate for a NAC closure. Opinion was divided and it could have been closed as "No consensus". I realize that you are an experienced editor but in the future, try to pick AFD discussions to close that don't seem like they might be contested, where it is obvious what the closure should be. This seems like a close call to me. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust

The article The Holocaust you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Holocaust for comments about the article, and Talk:The Holocaust/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A second request

  • Buidhe: In my opinion, your review of my FAC nom was at the very best hasty and ill-thought-out. That's being quite kind to you, IMHO. I genuinely do think it "poisoned the well", regardless of how "bemused" you are at that thought (as you said on Sandy's talk).
  • I am becoming concerned that my FAC nom will be closed sort of "Undecided" or similar. I actually do not know what practice the current FAC coords follow. I see one full support (Ceoil), one PASS on MOS only (Sandy), a PASS on source review, and... I dunno what Femke concluded.
  • Since you did not respect my very polite request that you not comment on my noms, and bearing in mind my opinion above, I formally request that you go on record regarding Black Monday (as per Pottery Barn rule)... I see three options, though you may see another:
    1. Strike your "leaning Oppose" remarks, but neither Support nor Oppose. [That would be odd, and perhaps the easiest way out... but... I suppose it's your right to do so.]
    2. Strike your "leaning Oppose" remarks, and Support.
    3. Go on record as an official "Oppose".
  • You may think me an asshole, but in all my wiki-career, I have always and everywhere been willing to admit that I am wrong when I am proven to be wrong. To be honest... I can't think of anyone else who does that in the context of really major points. Maybe there are many I haven't seen. Probably there are, in fact. I just haven't seen that, because I don't follow controversies etc. on Wikipedia.
  • And while I'm here: what was that all about where you followed me around and corrected my first one or two GAN reviews? Do you follow other people around, or only me? If you show me 2 or 3 diffs of you doing the same to other editors, not long before you did it to me, or perhaps some plausible explanation, I'll give you credit that it was not stalking etc.
  • Thank you for your time. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    1. I do not think it matters for the FAC whether I do 1, 3, or none of them. I almost never support at FAC.
    2. I don't have any recollection of working with you on GAN. Nevertheless, it is actually encouraged to look over new reviewers' work and help them improve. We now have an official monitoring system for it.
    (t · c) buidhe 14:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I could ask questions, but I won't. Waste of time. Thank you for your reply. I wish you well in all things. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a comment on James Keegstra Talk?

Today's comment strikes me as dubious, but I don't know if there is any etiquette for raising it? or best ignored? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Personally I tend to ignore trolls but I wouldn't say removing their messages is always wrong. (t · c) buidhe 00:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Partial follow-up AfD

Hi, because you recently participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which also led to the deletion of Comparison of the Turkic states, I would like to invite you to participate in the partial follow-up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states. The situation of these three pages is not exactly the same (because language family plays no role in these cases), but because many issues are similar, I've nominated them as well, and am curious what you think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Nobility in Europe has been nominated for renaming

Category:Nobility in Europe has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alan Lester

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Buidhe,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Conversion therapy

Buidhe, do you happen to remember this edit at Conversion therapy? The mention of "and in the Commonwealth from 1961..." without prior context for Commonwealth seemed odd, and made me wonder if it was perhaps copied from another article which contained the context. In any case, I'm guessing we mean the British Commonwealth here, because what else could it be? but that still seems odd, as that doesn't really localize its usage very much. Can you clarify that sentence in section § Aversion therapy? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot check the cited source for that statement. Yes, it refers to the British commonwealth. (t · c) buidhe 06:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Abuse in gymnastics

Hello, Buidhe,

You created this article but it has recently grown into a sprawling, overly long article. Do you have any interest in spending a little time to cut it back to a manageable size or split it into two articles? The recent edits by a new editor have been large ones so a check into copyrighted content might be warranted. Thanks for considering this request. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I took this page off my watchlist. I didn't find any copyright issues (other than some quotation that could be considered excessive) but I left some pointers for improving the article on talk. (t · c) buidhe 20:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I really appreciate you taking a look, thanks very much! Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Length of The Exorcist

Ok, then, as the tagger, you should certainly respond to questions as to what, specifically you would cut to make it shorter? I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into it. I'll be listening ... I'm sure you would agree that drive-by tagging, no matter how justified, does nothing for the project.

But I would also point out, as I did during the GAR, that it is now not much longer than Aliens and Back to the Future, both of which were promoted to FA in the last year. And your tag followed extensive editing during the GAR that got shot in the foot by the GAN crew over issues having nothing to do with it, which included splitting off the original production and themes sections as separate articles.

Yes, I know, the metric in question is prose size these days, not total byte count, as someone else brought up during the GAR, by which it should still be cut. But ... I still feel like I'm being punished for properly researching the article, cutting it down in response to criticism of its length that I admit had a point, and then being told that still isn't enough.

I have been thinking, though, and since you're the tagger, you are the perfect person to ask, I think: do you think a separate "reception of ..." article would work? We don't seem to have any yet for individual films, much less individual works (I think), but that section does, I allow, take up more than most articles, and I had thought about trimming it.

If you don't know, or don't think you can confidently answer, just say so, and I'll see what the good people at WT:FILM might have to say ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Case well, film is not the area I usually edit but if it were my article the sections I would be looking at reducing first would be the "production", "reception", and "litigation" sections (the last is already mentioned in the talk page comment). I don't see why a separate "reception of" article would be verboten since it is clearly a notable topic. If I had reviewed Back to the Future at FAC, I would likely have opposed on length, but nevertheless it's about 60% the length of your article at 10841 words. That's a very significant difference. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I already have a separate article on the production in draftspace, ready to be moved to mainspace as part of the GA process, as Ernest had asked. That was the original section (minus the intro). (One reason I can't cut as much there as some people might think I could ... the text next to the video clips (one more of which, Father Merrin's arrival, I am planning to add; I just didn't want to do it while it was up for GA) is necessary under the fair use criteria to justify the clips' inclusion, and based on past experience with some radical free-content warriors I'd prefer to have as much of that text in an article as possible.
I am just guided by my past experience. We have an entire category devoted to the production of specific films now, so it's OK. But years ago, when in response to a similar issue arising with The Devil Wears Prada, I split off a separate "production history of ..." article, I got shouted down, basically, by the then-WP:FILM coordinator, the argument being that there just wasn't a need for this sort of article for any film, so I reintegrated it and requested the deletion of the separate article. I had no idea until recently that things had changed. (And actually, since I have the idea down the line to prep that article for FA and nominate it in time for its 20th anniversary in a few years, I definitely intend to spin off the original production section as a separate article).
So as for "reception of ...", that's a different story. There is a category of such articles, but so far it includes no individual films (the closest is Reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) and, really, only one individual work (On the Origin of Species, which isn't even fiction). I am, to say the least, not sure how the idea of just up and doing this for an individual film would sit.
And, as with most articles you split off from a larger one, there is the question of condensing and rewriting what you leave behind so it tells the reader just enough and remains coherent with the rest of the article. Not everyone follows through with that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
With respect, I think this is backwards. You include non-free content to illustrate sourced content that already belongs in the article. You don't add content to the article to justify the inclusion of non-free content. WikiProject coordinators don't and shouldn't have the kind of powers you are describing. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I wish I could say that it was and have it be that. Some of our policies, I think, encourage defensive editing of this nature, things that would really not be done (at least not to that extent) if the editor weren't worried about the dogmatic enforcement of a particular policy. I'm sure some of the instances of CITEKILL documented at that page came about because people were trying to satisfy other editor's overly picky criteria for what a source said or whether it was reliable on its own.
And, to be fair, with this film the clips are (well, will be) its four most iconic scenes, scenes that have generated a lot of commentary over the years (I didn't know there was so much written about the angiography scene, from both the academic and medical perspectives, until after I added the clip to the article over a year ago).
As for the then-FILM coordinator, well, to be fair, I think I'm remembering him more harshly than the experience was. But that was back in 2008–09, a different era, when less things were settled than now. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all your work on Holocaust-related articles, particularly The Holocaust itself. A really important article to get right and a huge amount of research must have gone into it to get it through GAN. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Your suggestion that I cut some of the material in The Exorcist's litigation section not only led me to do it, but then to take yet another pass through the article (the third, I think!) and find more material to cut or trim, getting the article further down in size than I had thought I could. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I will be polling the talk page for the article on whether anyone has any objections to a separate "reception of ..." or "reaction to ..." article. I was going to go to WT:FILM but then I looked at the category again and saw that I had missed Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire, created in this discussion, which concerns the response of one portion of the audience (albeit a pretty big and important one) to the film. It's been there since 2009. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with a page

I was trying to add some new sources I removed one because most credible Soviet-Russian say 3.9 million died, which is close to what western scholars say. Maybe you could copy write my sources on to the page so they fit properly if you can thank you if you can! Dan white 76 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Dan white 76 I'm not opposed to removing what Gerlach states about Russian / Soviet estimates; after all, his book was published before the recent one you cite. However, it's unclear to me that the newly published book is a great source either. It seems to be written as a polemic against other authors who disagree with him and the higher figures take into account groups of prisoners who are not regarded as POWs by most of the cited sources. I am also not sure that the Extraordinary State Commission figures should be prioritized over decades of scholarship. It also doesn't seem like this book has been cited at all by the literature on Soviet POWs, which is another reason to be cautious. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Ireland's Holocaust" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ireland's Holocaust has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 30 § Ireland's Holocaust until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Place Bell (disambiguation)

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 Place Bell (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. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Buidhe,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Rishi

Please undo your closure and relist this discussion. A consensus can easily be found via relisting. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The move does not meet criteria for relist. It was relatively well attended for a move discussion, and no editors besides you agreed with the original proposal. (t · c) buidhe 00:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Moving Rishi to Rishi (term) was supported by another editor, it was just my proposal to redirect Rishi to Rishi Sunak, which received no support. Can you please reconsider? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Image stuff

Recently ran across Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries - am I correct in assuming that 10 non-free images, one to demonstrate the cover of every edition of this work, is a tad excess and there's really only space in the non-free guidelines for one? Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm yup, removed (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

  • Suggestion improvements
  • Favorite collections tips
  • Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Keine Kameraden

On 19 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keine Kameraden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1978, Keine Kameraden's findings – that 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war died of ideologically motivated mistreatment – caused a sensation in Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Keine Kameraden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Keine Kameraden), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

DeepState.Live

Thanks for your recent comment on this article, just to LYK I've posted the query on the GAN talk page. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for GA mentorship

Hello, I'm doing my first GA review, if you could take a look as well, that would be appreciated.

You can find the review here Talk:Fanya_Baron/GA1

Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FApages (reader facing)

Template:FApages (reader facing) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal of deletion of Category:Assassinated heads of state by time

Hello. There was a discussion in the thread Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Category:Assassinated heads of state by time which you closed with the result of delete. The nominator was User:LaundryPizza03. At the time, there were only 98 pages of assassinated heads of state. But today, using now PetScan, I found out that actually there are more than 800 pages of assassinated heads of state. Therefore, I request that the Category:Assassinated heads of state by time be reinstated, to be populated in a similar fashion as Category:Assassinated politicians by time. Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thinker78 Thanks for reaching out to me. Unfortunately, I don't think I can overturn the closure because this reasoning does not address the rationales that other editors provided for the overwhelming consensus of delete. For example, one editor wrote, "WP:NARROWCAT and redundant precision" and another noted, "it is in general a good idea to (1) provide 2 (or more) parents for a new category; (2) find at least 5 articles which clearly belong; (3) use existing trees rather than inventing new ones". Since Category:Heads of state by time still does not exist, editors agree it is not appropriate to start this new, more narrow categorization first. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NARROWCAT, "In general, categories which intersect two (or more) topics or characteristics, should only be created when both parent categories are very large, and similar intersections can be made for related categories."
As such,
Thinker78 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This feels too close to relitigating the deletion discussion. Nevertheless, I don't think there would be as much objection to category creation assuming that you followed the suggestions made during the deletion discussions—i.e. ensure that each category is useful to navigation, has multiple parents, and is populated asap. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
If there wouldn't be as much objection if I follow the suggestions and given the crucial new information of the category, that means that you don't have objection if I create the deleted category again, provided that it is useful for navigation, has at least 2 parents and is properly populated asap? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I cannot advise you to go against consensus in a recent deletion discussion. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
As the closer, you determined the course to follow according to the information at the time. But now that I brought crucial new information that the nominator didn't know at the time, at least I request the discussion be relisted. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Gallery of previous editions

You recently deleted the "Gallery of previous editions" for the book "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries."  I just wanted to point out that the use rationale for a non-free book cover is that it is needed in order to identify the book.  However, in this case there are 10 editions of the book and they all have different covers.  So the 10th edition cover can't be used to identify any of the other editions of the book.  The gallery of previous editions solves this problem, and thus it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable use of these non-free images.  The gallery also included other information on the various editions such as their ISBN numbers, as they are technically considered separate books. Fracton (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't meet NFCC#7. Many books have multiple covers but posting more than one is not an accepted practice as you could discover by browsing articles on books. (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
NFCC#7 says "one article minimum", meaning that an uploaded non-free image must be used in at least one article. It does not say that an article cannot have more than one non-free image. Note the link from NFCC#7 to the page on orphaned files. Fracton (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, but then couldn't this same rule be applied to the book cover in the info box?  The "use rationale" for that cover is the same as as for the other edition covers, i.e. it is needed for identifying the book.  The fact that any non-free book covers are allowed would seem to imply that this use rationale is considered sufficient. Fracton (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Personally I do not support the inclusion of any book covers unless there is significant sourced discussion of them in the article, but the bottom line is that the default is non-inclusion of non-free content and if you're arguing for inclusion you have to point out how it satisfies the NFCC and has consensus for inclusion. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The Wiki page on non-free content has an image section that explicitly allows cover art - NFCI#1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images
I would also like to point out that the copyright owners of book cover images are *expecting* them to be used in various ways on the Internet and apparently have no problem with this.  They can be found not just on publisher sites and Wikipedia, but also new and used book sellers, book review sites, sites listing ISBN numbers, book archiving sites, etc.  My point here is that they are different in this respect from most other non-free content, and as a practical matter they are extremely unlikely to lead to any problems. Fracton (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Cover art still has to meet all of the NFCC to be allowed in the article. (t · c) buidhe 00:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
As I read it, NFCI#1 says that cover art *always* satisfies NFCC#8 when it is in an article with critical commentary about the item whose cover is depicted.  Also, I have not seen anything that says you can't display all of the cover images for an item that has more than one, such as books with multiple editions. Fracton (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Even disregarding the contextual significance argument, several book covers are not minimal use. You seem to have missed the point of the nfcc which is not to include more non free content but to minimize its use to cases where omitting it would harm our encyclopedic purpose. no paper encyclopedia would include 10 book covers for a single book that is the subject of an entry. (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Assassinated heads of state by time

Thinker78 has asked for a deletion review of Category:Assassinated heads of state by time. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"Gay fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gay fascism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 8 § Gay fascism until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Nuremberg trials

Congratulations, Buidhe! The article you nominated, Nuremberg trials, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Million Award for Nuremberg trials

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Nuremberg trials (estimated annual readership: 1,180,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Wwwwwwwwowee! That's an iconic piece of world history. Just wanna say congratulations on this recent achievement I came across! dannymusiceditor oops 14:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent GA review

I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this GA review for an article I nominated. The reviewer's username gives me pause, as does their edit count and the rate that they're picking up GA reviews, even though they seem to somewhat know what they're doing. I thought it would be wise to bring this to a drive coordinator directly since they're active in the drive and I don't want to make a bigger issue out of this than necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It won't receive credit without a source check, but otherwise I don't think there is anything to do. I mean, it could potentially be a sock but without evidence you can't really lobby that. I also can't really judge the thoroughness of a review until it's closed. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
All right. Socking and Template:Uw-username both crossed my mind, but I'm hardly an expert in that aspect of Wikipedia, so I wanted to get another pair of eyes on it. Thanks! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2029 European Parliament election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2029 European Parliament election 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/2029 European Parliament election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The 2A12:A301:1000:0:0:0:0:2057 (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Mace Ward

Hello, Buidhe

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Lightburst, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, James Mace Ward, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Migrant deaths

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_28&oldid=1211795813"