User talk:Buidhe/Archive 11

Speedy deletion of Jananayak Dr. Chowdari Satyanarayana (CSN) Article
sir, this article has been deleted if I want to publish it again so I can do that. there would not be an issue of permission or thing like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutahar Maqsood (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Miami Nights 84
Hi there

you declined Draft:Miami Nights 1984 on the grounds that it was deleted at an AFC discussion.

please note this was undeleted and the original AFC was closed on soft delete terms, so it is now eligible for an actual review at draft space.

I have resubmitted it,

   Kadzi    (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I actually declined based on WP:NMUSIC. I was just noting the deletion discussion for future reviewers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you didn’t put that as the reason so I wasn’t to know :S    Kadzi    (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did, see the banner which states "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Second Punic War
Hi Buidhe, and thanks for starting the source review on this. Without even checking out your various comments it is clear that your summary is correct - "Overall, there are some significant issues with verifiability here" - and so I have withdrawn it. I would like to say to work on, but I am perturbed by the trend of my last three or so FAC/ACR nominations of Punic War articles, where the quality of my sourcing has become steadily worse. I am unsure why this is, but - apart from wrapping up one way or another the various other nominations I have open - I think it it best if I take a break from ACR and FAC nominations and sort out what is going wrong in my head. As and when I do make further nominations above GAN, it would probably be best for me to avoid Punic War articles. (Where I am guessing that I have become so familiar with the sources that I am struggling to actually read them.) At least for a while. Obviously, if and when I re-nominate this article, I will ping you to let you know.

And a heartfelt thank you for your many past, and ongoing, source reviews; they have all been appreciated. Let me know as and when I can reciprocate. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's actually more difficult to write a well-referenced article about a topic that you know a lot about. Too easy to write down what you know is correct and then cite a source that doesn't cover it completely. I also had this problem, but after its FAC failed, I went through and matched a source quote for all information in the Holocaust in Slovakia article (Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check). It was a pain but it also helped me write more verifiable articles.
 * I appreciate all the reviews you've done for my articles! If you are in the mood I do have a FAC open for Hitler's prophecy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think that I have learnt that the hard way. I moved on from the 100 Years' War one article away from a 12 article featured topic because it was starting to feel like work rather than fun. I was aware that I was struggling a bit to reread the same sources for literally the thirtieth time with my First Punic War articles. I had hoped that moving on to the Second and Third Wars would cure this, but it seems to have got worse. I will wrap up what Punic War articles I have in hand, with no noms above GAN, and then move on to a different era and area; goodness knows that there are enough which could do with some TLC.
 * On the 3PW article, Borsoka is now satisfied re the duplication issue; I don't know if you are too. I will be taking your "Slovakia Approach" today and going through my cites one by one (trying) to check that they actually support what they are supposed to.
 * Hitler's prophecy: definitely. Firmly on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hitler's prophecy: definitely. Firmly on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hitler's prophecy: definitely. Firmly on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights
I don´t think I am in an edit war. I addded a series of authors stating that access to the ECHR is very limited and that effectiveness of this Court is suffering as a consequence. There is plenty of literature about these developments. For me it´s only important to deliver a somewhat complete picture for Wikipedia. In law literature the situation I have portray is well-known. To present an utopian picture of the ECHR is helful for none.Srt2
 * First, I would like to thank you for your post. Wikipedia policy and guidelines require that we do not present a "utopian picture of the ECHR" but rather that the article presents the topic with a neutral point of view according to due weight in reliable sources. I think we can agree on that?
 * Your edit added the statement:
 * "Such a statement is hardly tenable already in view of the fact that it is not clear on the basis of which criteria such a jugment is made. Furthermore this statement ignores the circumstances that access to this Court is very limited and has become further restricted in the recent past."


 * Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not your own opinion that it is "hardly tenable". So, in order to include this statement in the article without breaching no original research requirement, you would need to cite a source which specifically criticizes the idea that ECHR is the most effective international human rights court.
 * I am also concerned that your edits are emphasizing some information beyond what is due weight. The Supreme Court of the United States also rejects to hear the vast majority of cases, but it is not mentioned in the lead of that article. In general, sources spend much more time discussing what the ECtHR does rather than the cases it doesn't hear. (t · c)  buidhe  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Buidhe for your considered remarks. I think we widely agree. There is only one point that - according to my opinion - needs further consideration: Should we really engage in a discussion about which Court is "the best one", "the most efficient one"? Do I really have to prove that the ECHR is not the most efficient human rights Court? I think that the approach chosen by the previous commentators praising the ECHR as the most efficient one on a world-wide scale is simply wrong. First of all, such talk is highly problematic because it conveys a message of superiority, highly problematic especially in the field of human rights. And what is more: Any regional human rights court is operating in a context-specific reality. It is really naive to believe that these regional rules could be simply transferred to another region. Can we agree that we add a note with literature that emphasizes this context-specifity? Here a reference to a book that has just been published and that explains were clearly the limits of any comparison:

http://pedone.info/livre/les-3-cours-regionales-des-droits-de-lhomme-in-context/

We can say that one court evidences some particularities the other does not have. But it is absolutely impossibile to create a "ranking" between human rights courts. To put it differently: It is not possible to state that the ECHR is the "most efficient human rights court" - but neither is it possible to prove the contrary.Srt2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srt2 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tip: write lead last
I just added lead to my recent articles on Far future in fiction and Near future in fiction. It is best to only write a one-sentence lead until you are finished developing the article, and then summarize key points at the top - not the other way around. See also WP:LEAD. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Historical policy of the Law and Justice party for deletion
I suggest you ignore this. I have speedily closed the discussion as a purely disruptive nomination by an account now CheckUser-blocked. JBW (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Polish Stonewall
Hello! Your submission of Polish Stonewall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Christian metal does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. ''I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_metal&curid=211913&diff=984744821&oldid=981565478 but without an edit summary, I don't know what to think. I assume it's because the content is not licensed or has a copyright issue. Correct?'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the template btw. I see. It's a series of edits. The first states "fails WP:NFCC and IMAGELOC". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

consider clearing your cache? Face-smile.svg
A stub on Erik Voeten is now in mainspace and all links to that article should be blue. In fact, I was in the middle of writing it when I was notified of your first revert. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is ENGLISH Wikipedia...
...not German Wikipedia, or any other language Wikipedias. Our DAB pages point to articles here, not elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:DABSISTER:


 * '''Sister projects


 * Disambiguation entries should not be created for subjects whose only content is on pages of sister projects (including other-language Wikipedias).'''


 * Now, please stop misbehaving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please see MOS:DABRL where it says that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." The language you are using is not helpful. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ignore this
- GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AE
I reported your false attribution to the source about PiS allegedly denying murder of Jews here --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now closed with no action. Admins commented "I'm not seeing any basis for action" and "Reasonable people can and do disagree over the proper interpretation of a reference." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you fix the article after move/split?
Act on the Institute of National Remembrance needs categories, and I think the interwiki links are messed up. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian dash
Please see talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. —Michael Z. 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review
I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Verfassungsblog
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion
Hi, Buidhe. Good work on Post-conflict reception of war criminals. I noticed more than half the lead is about the former Yugoslavia and consider this WP:UNDUE. Think you could expand it to include some of the other areas covered in the article? Also, I feel the US sub-heading could include a mention of William Calley and the Mỹ Lai massacre. That would be all from me. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion closer
I understand there is a "requested move" option in DC? In any case, your close at Talk:RSN Racing & Sport used an incorrect format, so the bot listed it as a malformed request. It's been fixed, so this is just an fyi.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification for source
Hello, I noticed that some information about this song was removed by you because the claim is based on a dubious source. Is Musicnotes the source you were referring to? Was the vocal range claim removed because of what this page says about using sheet music sources? Thanks. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Concerns were raised about the reliability of the source for that particular claim on the Reliable sources noticeboard. In addition to being a surprising claim that needs a strong source, the exact vocal range of a song is the kind of trivia that we wouldn't ordinarily include unless sources emphasize it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nástup
The article Nástup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nástup for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Christian views on lying
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Move of n-Butanol
I don't believe you are interpreting the requested move discussion correctly. Use of the lowercase forms like "1-butanol" were used by and myself because that is proper sentence case; however the page titles need to have the first word capitalized per normal Wikipedia naming conventions. Look at the articles for the related alcohols 1-propanol and 1-pentanol that were mentioned in my move proposal and you will see these pages have titles with the capitalized form, as 1-butanol should also be. Myself and commented after the move discussion that this move was in error. Generally when someone uses "Support" in bold font it means they support the proposal as indicated; even if IJBall intended to mean the lowercase version, that was not sufficient to conclude consensus for this alternative. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mdewman6: After checking Google Scholar, I can indeed see that the chemistry convention is to write uppercase at the beginning of the sentence and lowercase otherwise. Perhaps write it down somewhere as a WP:CHEMISTRY style guide? Just a suggestion, (t · c)  buidhe  19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The capitalization convention with respect to compound names with prefixes is already noted at Naming_conventions_(chemistry), which I agree could be summarized at the Chemistry MOS, but I don't think that would have prevented this misunderstanding. To look at a move discussion with only two comments, both in support, and conclude that there is consensus to move the page to a name different from the one originally proposed is quite presumptuous! A discussion closer ought to be very sure such a conclusion is correct and question their assumptions, otherwise they should exercise caution and consider leaving the discussion open for an admin or a user more familiar with the subject matter to close the discussion, consistent with WP:RMCI. Normally a vote to move to a page other than that originally proposed would be articulated more clearly. Only one of the commenting users specifically used the lowercase version, which by the way is not the official IUPAC name (which is butan-1-ol, which fails WP:COMMONNAME), and as has already been made clear, this was not intended to mean the page name should be lowercase. As a page mover you are supposed to exercise the discretion entrusted in you and demonstrate a better-than-average understanding of naming conventions policy. Nevertheless, I understand the numeric prefix is a potential source of confusion and that this was likely a simple mistake. Believing this was a simple mistake, a user not involved in the discussion attempted to point this out to you on the talk page, and after not hearing from you for about a day I took this to technical requests. What I don't understand is how after being confronted with two users challenging your understanding of the discussion, one of whom was not involved in the original discussion, you still asserted you were correct by contesting the request without further investigation, even as (unknowingly) another page mover saw no problem with the technical request and was performing the correct move. Why did you not first take a closer look at the requested move and see the other alcohol articles I linked in the original proposal have capitalized titles, or notice that the original page name, n-butanol, also had the "B" capitalized? Why didn't you discuss your point of view on the talk page after being pinged the first time? My point in all this is that mistakes and misunderstandings happen, and I appreciate your efforts, but your actions in this case turned what could have been a simple misunderstanding into an unnecessarily larger mess involving numerous page move actions and other editors. For someone with page mover rights, I urge you to exercise more discretion and caution with closing move discussions in the future. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
It may interest you to know that this is the first time in over four years that the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves have been awarded. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm honored! (t · c)  buidhe  04:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My error in archiving
Hi Buidhe! was my fault, not vandalism. See the archived URL at archive.today. Archive.today is quite clever - I just didn't think and check the results carefully enough. Feel free to double-check if I've fixed the error correctly (in both articles). Boud (talk)
 * I'm sorry, I assumed that some vandal had sneakily changed the URL to the wrong one. Glad it's fixed (t · c)  buidhe  04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem :). By the way, seeing your editing interests above, if you know or can get good quality Polish translations, you might want to follow the sources in the Ukrainian section of Przemysław Czarnek - the Minister of the about-to-be-merged Ministry of Research and Higher Education (research + universities) and Ministry of National Education (schools) - and decide if the sources justify a comment on Czarnek's views in relation to anti-semitism. I'm unlikely to touch that, because the interpretations of what is anti-semitism versus what is a criticism of Israel as a state and what the allusions are in a statement are issues that I didn't find clear enough in the sources. (I can guess likely interpretations, knowing the context, but my guesses here are irrelevant for Wikipedia content.) If the current women's revolution in PL fails, Czarnek will presumably try to revise the Polish school curriculum and Polish university faculties in line with his view on what would constitute improvements. Better that en.Wikipedia readers have reliably sourced info on what his views and past actions are. Boud (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have expanded the article somewhat. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pelagianism
The article Pelagianism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pelagianism for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion for Rafał Gaweł
Do you think he is notable? I am a bit concerned re WP:BLP this could be non-neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Kresy myth moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Kresy myth, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Dear Buidhe, in this editing you removed most of the photos, particularly, the photographs and video of the use of cluster munitions; Israeli and Turkish made military equipment and others, which is very important as evidence in this conflict.

Please, next time try to discuss on the talk page before removing. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Profaning a monument
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kresy myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pelagianism
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Oddity
Hello B. This edit seems to have deleted 's reply to another editor. The weird thing is Bonadea's post seems to have removed the Quartz thread. Even weirder is that the two threads aren't next to each other on the board. I can't untangle what went on and, as I'm headed to sleep, I wanted to let you know what I found in hopes that you can figure it out. I know you are both good editors and I just didn't want there to be a misunderstanding. Apologies if this causes any problems. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 10:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Wojciech Sadurski
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Thirty-Year Genocide
—valereee (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Withers
Hi, are you returning to this page? Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pact of Free Cities
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Parole der Woche
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kapo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Friedman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from ArnabSaha
 Saha ❯❯❯  Stay safe    06:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! :) (t · c)  buidhe  03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members. 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. William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In Praise of Blood
Thought you might be interested in the author's opinion of the article about her book. (The article looks well-balanced to me, but I know nothing of the subject matter) Just passing the conversation on. Schazjmd  (talk)  01:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible collaboration for 1932 German presidential election
Hello,

I've worked on 1932 German presidential election, and was wondering if you'd like to collaborate and ultimately co-nom it for FA. I realize you might have other stuff on your schedule, but this seems like something you'd be interested in. Thanks for your consideration!

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * John M Wolfson Thanks for the offer, but as you guessed I'm working on other things (:. (t · c)  buidhe  11:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, take care. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Makuchowska + Pikulska
You might want to keep an eye on Mirosława Makuchowska and Katarzyna Pikulska, for notability and/or deletion issues, according to an active Wikipedian. Boud (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
Hello! Your submission of Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please
I hate to put you on the spot, I know we don't know each other well, and you probably don't think that highly of me, but I am in real need, so I am asking anyway. I put Biblical criticism up for FA review a month ago. It is its second time being nominated. I failed to complete the process the first time because I left WP suddenly, and now it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Kresy myth
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Charlie (Street Fighter)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlie (Street Fighter). 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. Haleth (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust
Hello! Your submission of Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Holocaust and social media
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Croatia women's national junior handball team
As closer, would you be so kind as to untag the list of articles attached to the discussion? XFDcloser doesn't seem to bother looking for additionally nominated pages. Thanks. --Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk 19:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After closing it, I checked a few of them, which did not have the banner. However, now I went through and made sure all the tags are removed. (t · c)  buidhe  19:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still several of these showing up at WP:BADAFD. --<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk  17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Chinese whispers/Telephone
While there is more support than opposition some of the support arguments are pretty strong (such as the sources produced by FOARP and the ATDAB arguments I made which RETAIN allows) I think at best that should have been "no consensus". Most of the support was due to RATAIN but as noted I showed how ATDAB allows this and the other main support point was that the term is offensive but it was noted that we aren't censored and "Chinese whispers" meets CRITERIA.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Crouch I agree that you and other oppose !voters made some good points. However, considering that it was, by my count, 2:1 in favor of the move, the support arguments would have to be really weak for the discussion to be closed as "no consensus"—the majority of !voters clearly felt that the arguments in favor were more persuasive. (t · c)  buidhe  23:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to point out the obvious here, but you're essentially saying "For the discussion to be closed as no consensus the arguments in favour would have to be weak, but those arguing in favour thought their arguments were strong, so they must have been". That isn't assessing consensus, that is simply counting votes and saying that the the arguments of the side with more must be more persuasive because they have more. How else are we supposed to understand the statement that "the majority of !voters clearly felt that the arguments in favor were more persuasive"? Because they felt strongly about it they must be right? FOARP (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * But I can't see how the support side is strong enough to close as consensus to move. Even though there was more support the arguments presented are less convincing I think "no consensus". The points made by the nominator were largely countered by FOARP's finding so I don't see any significant reasons for moving to counter the points for not moving.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 23:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The closing statement was woefully inadequate. An explanation is required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Woefully inadequate close, and bad counting into the bargain. You are counting "support" !votes that were not actually supporting the proposed title. Revert please. FOARP (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've updated the page with a closing statement. The statement is clearly problematic. "The majority of editors, by about 2:1, consider that the reasons to oppose the name "Chinese whispers" are more persuasive than the arguments to support it." - an RM discussion is a discussion in favour of a new title, not a discussion about how much we dislike the old one. We cannot simply add up !votes that disagree with the present title if they were instead !votes for different titles.
 * You state that "WP:POVNAME generally only allows POV titles if "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources"...opposers of the move haven't shown that it is the name used "in a significant majority of English-language sources"" but this is exactly what was shown in the discussion - a significant majority of sources using the name Chinese Whispers, particularly in light of the fact that about half of the references in the corpus to "Telephone game" are not references to this particular game. If Chinese whispers is a POVNAME then "Telephone" is arguably also a POVNAME, so why doesn't the logic cut the other way? Finally, WP:POVNAME was not cited by anyone in the discussion so this is in essence not an assessment of the consensus (no-one actually said that Chinese Whispers was a POVNAME) but instead a super-vote.
 * Please revert and allow an admin closure. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple users actually expressed concern about the POV of the name, in slightly different words. All I am doing is quoting and applying the policy. If you thought telephone was a POV name you should have stated that in the discussion, yet that was not an argument made by any !voter. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're saying that I should have argued against a point that was not raised in the discussion. If you wished to raise WP:POVNAME you should have cast a !vote. If you are applying the policy in spite of it not being raised then why didn't you take note of the evidence that "Chinese Whispers" was 30% more common in the Google Ngrams corpus than the two proposed names together (which shouldn't be the point of comparison since they are often used to refer to completely different things) and hence had been shown to be "the name used "in a significant majority of English-language sources""? FOARP (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the point about POVNAME isn't that relevant since indeed it wasn't included in the discussion and the point about originally being under telephone variants was counted by RATAIN and ATDAB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're close should take more into account the "the change reduces ambiguity" part of RETAIN and "Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we chose Elevator as the title of the article on the lifting device. since both of these favour keeping it at "Chinese whispers" even if it was first at "Telephone game" and then "Telephone (game)". "Chinese whispers" is unambiguous and clear, "Telephone (game)" requires a qualifier and "Telephone game" was also unacceptable to some people who favoured using "Telephone (game)".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust denial/Double genocide theory
Hi, thanks for your work at those articles. Do you think a sentence about the theory could be at Holocaust denial? It is true "the sources cited don't describe any of these as a form of Holocaust denial, full stop", but Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial, hence why I added it in the first place, so maybe a sentence could be added to say that the double genocide theory is supported in Eastern Europe due to trivalising the Holocaust, i.e. that they "[i]n some former Eastern Bloc countries, Holocaust deniers do not deny the very fact of mass murder of Jews, but they deny the participation of their own nationals in the Holocaust" and perhaps it could be added, "proposing an equivalence, known as the double genocide theory, to equalize Communism and Nazism", or something like that. Davide King (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King The issue here is that most sources define "Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements..." as stated in the lead of Holocaust denial. Obviously double genocide theory does not make any of those false statements. They aren't interested in claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, Auschwitz wasn't a death camp, or that Hitler didn't order the murder. At most, double genocide proponents deny the role of local collaborators—"the Holocaust happened, but our guys were not involved"—but even that isn't necessarily the case. Most sources I have read clearly make a distinction between denying the role of collaborators versus denying the genocide itself. Therefore, I would say it is more appropriate to discuss in Holocaust trivialization or maybe in a full-fledged article Holocaust uniqueness debate, or perhaps Holocaust distortion (which should not redirect to Holocaust denial as it is used to mean something different). (t · c)  buidhe  05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks! However, this should be clarified because Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial. My understanding is that revisionism is used as a cover for denial, as argued here. Davide King (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Hájková
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 41, September – October 2020 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New partnership: Taxmann
 * WikiCite
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Capitalism
I don't know if slavery and genocide are good examples. Modern slavery and racism are both products of early capitalism. TFD (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus
You need to formulate your objection to the section on the talk page. Because it is not obvious what it is. And because of the 1R rule, you should self-revert. Im The IP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? I stated clearly that the content contains WP:OR. And I only made one revert. (t · c)  buidhe  06:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reinstating a previous edit counts as a second revert. Most of the section is quotes from Childers which is not OR. Im The IP  (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, both your large deletions were reverts. Regarding the article, I agree with you that it is a mess but that should be sorted out on the talk page. Zerotalk 07:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first edit was revert to what version? The first edit even if its removal of the text that not recently added is considered an edit it was always the practice --Shrike (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy page defines a revert in one place as "to undo the action of another editor" and in another place "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". There is nothing about going back to a previous version; the "in part" makes that very clear. It is only necessary to put a part of the page back to a previous version, and that is obviously the page before the material was added. You are correct that sometimes people get away with not counting deletion of very old material as reverts, but if this went to AE it would be pot-luck whether that defense would work since technically there is no time limit. Personally I wouldn't take the chance. Zerotalk 13:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, now both Zero and I have asked you to kindly revert as you breached the 1R rule. You have been editing other pages during the day and have ignored our urging. That is not collegial of you. If you have a minute to spare, please self-revert your edit. Im The IP  (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't breached anything it was never enforced in that way and to what version was his first "revert"?--Shrike (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A revert does not have to be to a version. I proved it above and that is normal practice. Zerotalk 21:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Im The IP (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Victims of Communist Memorial Foundation
Could you please tell me your thoughts on this revert? They wrote that "talking about 'achievements under Communism' (to be neutral one would have to add details about the 'failures of Communism', but presenting POVs about Communism is not the purpose of this article" but the "failures of Communism" are already discussed as part of the death toll, so to respect NPOV we would need o report scholarly analysis disagreeing with this victims of Communism narrative. In addition, "presenting POVs about Communism is not the purpose of this article" but that is exactly what the article does in presenting the organisation's POV without any scholarly rebuttals. I also dispute their claims of synthesis because this narrative discussed by both sources is proposed by the organisation itself and the name itself of "victims of Communism" comes from the organisation, so it is relevant, NPOV and due. Nonetheless, since you seem well-informed about the topic, I think it would be helpful if you could state your thoughts. Even if my edit was rightly reverted, we should not present only the organisation's POV. This was my attempt at doing that and perhaps you can do it in a better way I did. Davide King (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)