User talk:Buidhe/Archive 13

What do when no consensus is reached for an AfD?
Why did the first AfD for Mass killings under communist regimes not follow G5; or why it essentially Ke[pt] the article when there was No consensus? As I wrote here and as I ask in the headline, why was not the article first deleted per G5? And why did it essentially result in Keep even though there was no consensus for it in the first three AfDs? The onus should be on these for Keep to prove their points, the same way the onus is on these wishing to add content to the article; if there was no consensus, why did it result in Keep? What would have actually followed the comments is to delete the article since there was no consensus for Keep and since they were the ones creating the article, the onus is on them proving why it should be kept, if the fact the article was created in the first place by a permanently banned user is not enough. I was not the only one to note this either:
 * The creator of this page is a banned user, a serial crosswiki vandal. As this page was clearly an attempt to troll, perhaps G5 could apply here. Triplestop x3 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Supplementary note - the nature of the creator should mean, I think, that the default should be delete, not keep, if the judgement is "no consensus". Rd232 talk 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is a clear attempt to incite conflict in an issue of this controversial nature. If we can't agree to keep it, then don't feed the troll and trash it. Nothing of value would be lost Triplestop x3 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this article was created in a clear attempt to troll and I don't think we should allow his trolling to stand. Triplestop x3 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I was saying, what should have been done is (1) delete the article but (2) save the content and merge it; and (3) recreate the article only when there is clear consensus for it that it would fail an AfD. This would have been a nice compromise in respecting both sides and the actual result of No consensus. The fact the article was Ke[pt], essentially giving out and endorsing Keep even though there was no consensus for it and the onus was on them since they created and supported the article, falsified the last two AfDs since by Keep[ing] the article in spite of No consensus legitimised the Keep side and made it easier for them to eventually win out. Even then, what exactly did change that suddenly made it go from No consensus to Keep? I see the same arguments and Keep seems to be based just on the fact more on these who supported Keep participated but Wikipedia is neither a vote nor a democracy; and as the latest take page discussions show, there is no consensus either. No consensus still seems to be the more approriate summary.

Even then, the first AfD to result in Keep included the closure's personal opinions, such as "[t]his is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia", rather than actual summary of arguments. If these on Delete made more convincing arguments based on policy, the result should be Delete, even though there were a few more Keep. Indeed, as argued by The Four Deuces, "if all editors at AfD relied on policy-based decision-making, then this article would have been deleted long ago. However if you add together editors who think the article is biased but could be reformed, editors who will vote to keep the article for ideological reasons and a large group of editors who will vote to keep any article regardless of what it is about [or what I will later write, namely that the Keep side supports different topics, so they are supporting Delete because we are supposed to have only one topic per article] that may be difficult. Unfortunately, the lead I proposed could be used as evidence to keep and rewrite the article. Then it would be kept but not re-written."

Nonetheless, the fourth AfD closure also clearly stated: "If this article has content that conveys a POV without offering well sourced alternative positions, that content needs to be dealt with by editors and article improvement. WP:NPOV seeks to have content that is balanced when there are multiple views on a subject. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is not intended with eliminate a particular POV just because it exists. The same logic applies to claims of WP:NOR. If there are conclusions drawn in the content that is unsupportable by sources, then editors need to deal with it in the process of article improvement. If the title needs to change, suggest a rename."

The last AfD also clearly stated: "Although there are likely many areas where the article could use improvement, rough consensus is that the concerns brought up do not make grounds for deletion. However, further discussion on the article's future (including the name choice, sythesis identification, rewriting, and/or merging) is strongly encouraged on the article's talk page."

In other words, our concerns about policies and guidelines violations are valid, something that these for Keep have ignored, like there are no issues. In addition, that is exactly what we have been doing and arguing about, rather than asking for deletion; we are not even arguing for deletion but for a new main topic that is actually supported by sources and does not violate these policies and guidelines. This is why I believe another AfD would be a waste of time and misleading as these for Keep are arguing for different topics but, as you noted, "[i]ssues with the current article framing have been extensively discussed above. Lumping together various subjects into one is also not ideal." Hence, it would be misleading because the Keep side is actually violating our policies and guidelines in supporting more than one topic or even disagreeing among themselves about what the main topic actually is (some may support 4, others may support 5 or other main topics I listed in my RfC, which are actually different and not all are supported by scholarly sources). In conclusion, these last two AfDs for Keep cannot be used to argue there are no issues or against a rewriting since they were actually encouraged or suggested in both latest AfDs.

Apologies for the length but this is clearly an important and controversial issue. I would like to hear your thoughts, especially what should happen if an AfD results in No consensus for three times in a row but it is kept, which made it easier for Keep to win in the last two and legitimised arguments per sources which ignored the counter-arguments. Also whether it should have been deleted in the first place due it being created by a blocked user to prove a point per G5 and whether the closures were a good summary of the arguments.

—Davide King (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King G5 only applies when there are no significant contributions from other users. I think what is more relevant is the current and future policy compliance or lack thereof of the article in 2020, rather than its "original sin". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment! I agree with your analysis but the problem is the latest AfDs are used as an excuse that no problems or violations exist, ignoring the fact discussion of violations were encouraged, and a rewriting and even a merge were suggested as possible solutions. I agree with Paul Siebert that "[i]f [they] will continue arguing in the current style, that will be tantamount to resisting to removal of NPOV policy violations from the article, which is a sanctionable misbehaviour. We either fix the article and resolve NPOV issues, or I address to ArbCom directly." Unfortunately, I see the ArbCom as the only solution, as any of our attempts to resolve the issues have been in vain and the fact the issues exists is not even aknowledged by them, in spite of the AfD's closures. I believe we have given and provided them with very convincing arguments and solutions. P.S. I disagree that the default in No consensus is to Keep. In general, not just limited to this article, it should result in something like turning the article into a redirect, or save or merge content to other articles, until a clear consensus for Keep is established. Davide King (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Albeit this is not the same thing we were discussing, I do not want to create yet another thread, but I would like to ask if you could take a look at my analysis of sources here. If my reading is indeed correct (albeit I would note this is not just my reading; both Semelin and Straus reviewing Courtois, Mann and Margolin, and Valentino, respectively, say they do not say there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing; the former support equivalency between class and racial genocide, or of Communism and Nazism, whereas the latter support Communist mass killing as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing, which is not the same thing or topic), what is to be done? Because this is such a controversial and partisan topic that these supporting the article simply ignore that sources do not support their topic but our proposal, and this amounts to I just like it and ownership of content.

What is to be done when sources do not clearly support the topic (i.e. a link between communism and genocide/mass killing, which is the only reason to keep the article, because to exist in the first place, it would need to have a link, otherwise it would be synthesis)? It also looks a POV coatrack article because all the events we describe there are not described as genocide or mass killing in their individual articles, so not only it is synthesis but it is a coatrack article because it pushes the view they were, even though that is not what scholars say and no link is supported either. Is there a way where one or more admins can review the sources and tell whose reading (i.e. do they support the link or not? If so, is the link a fact or a theory?) is correct? Because I really do not see a way out and that article is so blatantly in violations of our policies and guidelines, which these users adamantly support getting violated, when our proposal is a very fair compromise that would keep the article but rewriting it in an accurate and neutral way to respect our policies and guidelines.

This needs to be solved because the more the currently-structured article exists, the more it is legitimised through citogenesis. You can see this already happens when users take the topic and sources, and the Prague Declaration as reflecting scholarly consensus rather than being an anti-communist political decision, for granted. I do not care whether I am 'correct' or not, but something needs to be done to establish whose analysis and reading of sources on the topic is 'correct.' It is going nowhere.

Davide King (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Slovakia scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the The Holocaust in Slovakia article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 27, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 27, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  18:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the Hitler's prophecy article has been scheduled at Today's featured article/January 30, 2021. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Whitehorse/Cousins Airport
I was curious as to why this and this moves? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather This happened as a side result of the consensus to move Whitehorse, since it is a subpage. However, it wasn't explicitly included in the move, so if you think there is a good reason to move back, feel free to do so (or file at WP:RM/TR). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a subpage, it is an article with a / in its title. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless, it seems to have been fixed now. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. What I said was wrong. Talk:Whitehorse/Cousins_Airport is a subpage but Whitehorse/Cousins_Airport is not. But I don't know where that leaves anyone. Thincat (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd forgot about titles with /. So Talk:Aklavik/Freddie Carmichael Airport is a subpage of Aklavik but Aklavik/Freddie Carmichael Airport isn't. And so on. Pluse I movedd it back to the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Whitehorse
Although it's true that bad links to a primary topic damage the encyclopedia, ultimately you would have to change the article titles policy to prevent this (emphasis added).

Words fail me. Narky Blert (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the directions at WP:RM, I believe I am obliged to apply policies and guidelines as they currently exist when closing move discussions. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Benjamin Valentino for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Valentino 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 Articles for deletion/Benjamin Valentino 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. Nug (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–1946)
People are still trying to push the double genocide theory on this page is there any way can can get max protection for the page?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:88CE:300:3401:D1A5:4BA3:6C32 (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Right to truth
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

edit conflict at Stutthof concentration camp
Sorry, I didn't intend to revert you last time, there was an edit conflict. Please restore/remove any content you wish and I'll review it later. This section needs further cleanup, and then there is the main article about Soap made from human corpses that likely needs cleanup too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Milan Reiman


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

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. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocide in Muslim countries
This article is similar to MkUCR. it begins with an assumption that Islam is genocidal, then provides a list of mass killings to prove the point. The connection however is never explained. The theories of Schwanitz and Morris are not explained. Is that really what they meant?

I think the best approach to this type of article is provided by the example of United States and state terrorism, which is a controversial analysis provided by Noam Chomsky and others. The article examines the arguments that the U.S. has engaged in state terrorism, rather than providing a list of incidents. Notice that a number of supporters of MKuCR used opposite arguments at the U.S. & state terrorism talk page.

Islamic terrorism has also been a controversial topic and the Obama administration refused to use the term. But it is the common name for terrorist attacks motivated by Islam. It correctly excludes attacks by Muslims unconnected with Muslim belief, in particular Arab nationalist terrorism which was the main form of terrorism in the Middle East at one time.

Is there any reason why you left out mass killings by the U.S. client state Indonesia of suspected Communists and of Christians in East Timor?

TFD (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Thanks for your comment. Actually, I threw this article together very quickly and do not intend it to ever go to mainspace because it is a fringe theory and it would be hard to find secondary sources to meet GNG. (Morris at least only deals with the Ottoman Empire, so he shouldn't be cited to support the overall theory). I will add Indonesia though, thanks for you suggestion! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, could you please work together for a draft of Victims of Communism as rewrite of Mass killings under communist regimes? I agree that United States and state terrorism is the best approach because it actually discusses the views of these authors rather than stating it as fact or making a list of all events described as state terrorism by the United States and providing only their interpretation. I can help too but I would need some general structure. This is still a good lead for a start. We may also divide it into Popular (The Epoch Times, the Prague Declaration, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation et al.) and Scholarly (Courtois, Rummel et al.) views sections. Davide King (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Guenter Lewy
 * added a link pointing to Peter Black

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion
G'day Buidhe, I have just taken on the GAN Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA2, and once I'm done, I was wondering if you would mind just running your eye over it to give me some additional assurance that I haven't missed anything major. The explanation why is at the GAN page. No pressure, so if it isn't something you are interested in doing, I'll ask someone else. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

TVP Poland
Hi, thank you for discussing me and treating me with respect. While we had a different point of view on article Telewizja Polska, I hope that in the future we will also be able to discuss our ideas about the shape of the articles. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In Praise of Blood
Hello! Your submission of In Praise of Blood at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe, I would like you to send you an email about what I believe is a COI with respect to Saflieni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLRever (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pearls Before Swine
There was no consensus on the change to a primary topic for the title "pearls before swine" at Talk:Pearls Before Swine. Please correct and retarget pearls before swine to the disambiguation page. I've cleaned up other parts of your move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I count at least two in favor and only you opposed, so I would call that a rough consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please reread the discussion. There was only one expressed support. And please leave the contentious closes to admins. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations! With 6,128 views, your National indifference hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for In Praise of Forgetting
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:War crimes committed by the Home Army has been nominated for deletion
Category:War crimes committed by the Home Army has been nominated for deletion. 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&#124; reply here 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of True Pole
Hello! Your submission of True Pole 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) 12:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Okay not a 100% sure this is how you leave a message on someone's page but here goes: Actually, it would be a lot more interesting if you gave a detailed explanation how Turkey has been spending X millions of dollars of lobbying, recall of ambassadors, attempting to get any mention of Armenians expunged from academic conferences and museums, and many more things.

My Apple dictionary lists it as action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. Is Wikipedia not public property of sorts? Did I believe that you are deliberately trying to destroy the quality of the article? Yes. In my mind, it qualified as vandalism. Now that you have actually mentioned recall of ambassadors, Armenians expunged from academic conferences and museums, I have changed my opinion a little bit. I think a detailed log of what the Turkish foreign ministry does/did would be something very interesting to add.

Also, unrelated, I remember switching the Wikipedia article on Swarthmore to Slutmore when I was rejected. Now that's vandalism. Still, it was very cathartic. Hyios monogenes (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Belarus
{failed verification|word "un-free" does not appear in source, cannot confirm that results of opposition parties was the reason for criticism}}, - you wrote. the word "un-free" indeed does not appear in source, but first two pages contain similar information. 1. un-free - looks as a synonym to sentences such as " Universal principles and constitutionally guaranteed rights of expression, association and assembly were seriously challenged, calling into question the Belarusian authorities’ willingness to respect the concept of political competition on a basis of equal treatment", etc. through the report. 2. Further, about opposition parties - from report " The marginalization of political parties in the election process was also reflected in the administration of the elections in a manner that sought to actively exclude candidates representing a diversity of interests. While pro-government parties were barely visible and did not put forward candidates in significant numbers, opposition parties were undermined by the arbitrary non-registration of prospective candidates, and at times by groundless de-registrations, thereby diminishing the voters’ choice. 3. Since the article is locked at the moment, please, consider replacing your comment or rephrasing on you own. Best, Violeance (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Violeance Thanks for the clarification. If "un free" is not a quote, it should not be in quote marks; if the real complaint is that the election is unfair rather than that it gives good/bad results to a certain political party—that should be made clear. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Double quotation marks can also be used sometimes to indicate that a word is special in some way, so called scare quotes, which are quotation marks put around a word to show that the writer doesn't buy into the meaning. For example: Women achieved “equality” when they were granted the right to vote in 1920. Best, Violeance (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice work with Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
Hey. Just wanted to let you know that I was reading Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law somewhat in passing the other day (after already having been familiar with חוק לעשיית דין בנאצים ובעוזריהם in years past), and I found myself quite impressed with the high-quality nature of your work. Nicely done! El_C 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Çaylaqqala
Hello. It is time to stop the discussions in Çaylaqqala, Hasanriz and Qırmızı Bazar. Because 7 days are over. EljanM (TALK) 14:12, 27 December 2020

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

DYK for True Pole
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocidal rape Page Double genocide theory pushing
It seems like somebody put the Red army Rapes as Genocidal rape? But the red army was not trying to genocide the Germans in the page history it looks like somebody copied and pasted it from war rape. None of sources used for the Red army rape on the page say its Genocidal rape as it was Copied and pasted from Rape during the occupation of Germany on the page.85.163.4.89 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&diff=859962306&oldid=859918790

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armenian Genocide denial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthesis.

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

Happy New Year!


Empire AS  Talk ! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be . Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive . This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for opinion
New year Greetings;

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

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

Thanks and warm regards

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

Image deletion - Picture of Frances Gertrude McGill
Hello Buidhe -- I hope your new year is off to a good start! I wanted to ask your advice about a recent image deletion on WikiCommons. You gave me a very helpful image review for my FAC nomination of Frances Gertrude McGill last month, in which you said the main portrait image of McGill (and other remaining images) had adequate licensing. However, an editor apparently nominated the portrait image for deletion on Dec. 24th, and it has since been removed. Is there any way to argue for its recovery, or is it a lost cause? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alanna the Brave I am not terribly familiar with Canadian copyright law and how it interacts with US law, but Wikiacc seems to have a valid point, as far as I know. Perhaps you could try discussing with them, otherwise Deletion review is an option. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alrighty -- I may take a shot at that. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with harassment
Dear. Happy New Year! I do not know you but I can see you have kindly listed yourself as admin who is willing to deal with harassment. Could you please have a look at this thread in particular and this talk page in general and see whether there is a pattern of harassment, denial of harassment and mocking the harassed one from any particular user? I am an involved editor, and I need an uninvolved admin to make an independent assessment, please. Many thanks. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not an admin, I cannot help you with this, I'm afraid. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Stefan Ihrig
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Rwandan genocide case request withdrawn by filing party
The case request Rwandan genocide has been withdrawn by the filing party. The comments made by the arbitrators details arbitrators thoughts on the case request. A permanent link to the case request can be viewed through this wikilink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

Macclesfield
Hi, I saw you just did the move for Macclesfield Football Club but can I ask if you can revert it? I am sorry for an oversight on my part, I've only just realised that the page was actually hijacked as it was originally for an Aussie rules club but the editor removed what was there and replaced it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  The C of E God Save the Queen!   Now done. Please make sure that the redirects are going to the right place. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

File licensing help
I'd like to be able to add File:Price Raid (cropped).jpg to Second Battle of Newtonia, since a non-map image has been requested in the ACR. It's obviously PD (produced in 1865 and the artist died in 1914), but the Commons image page currently lacks a PD US template, and I'm not sure what the best one to use is. Would the PD-US-expired one work? (I'm not sure if the production of the painting/sketch counts as publishing, or if I need to try to track it down in a pre-1926 book). Or can something be PD in the US specifically because the producer of it has been dead for enough years? Hog Farm Bacon 02:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm: I think the current licensing is OK. Hirtle chart notes that unpublished works with a "Known author with a known date of death [expire] 70 years after the death of author." It was also probably publicly displayed at some point which would count as publication, and therefore PD due to time since publication. But I'm not as picky as Nikkimaria when it's obvious that the work is out of copyright. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I'll be adding it. Hog Farm Bacon 04:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terminology of the Armenian Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entente.

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

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


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

January 2021
You have a nasty habit of edit warring. If you make a bold edit, and are reverted, do not edit war. What it is about WP:EDIT WAR and WP:BRD that you don't understand. Please be warned, that I will show precisely zero tolerance for your recidivist behavior. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Debresser BRD explicitly states that you have to give a reason for undoing an edit that explains why you think the previous version is better. You have yet to do so with regard to the Citizenship article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it not clear to you that I think your edit is not an improvement? That should be clear enough, and that is enough reason to revert. Now you must discuss and not edit war. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably should apologize. Which I do hereby. I should have seen that your edit was an improvement. Which does not mean I agree with you regarding the behavioral issue, but that just became moot. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for writing you this but I really respect you as a Wikipedian and trust your neutral judgement. So is this just my impression or were their comments correct? I do not think I never implied what they think I did; I also stated right from the start "[t]his is just a slippery and a reductio ad absurdum just to show ... how slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum your comment and proposal was in the first place." I thought Communist-related articles were the big problem but I think these about genocide and mass killings are too and cherrypicked rather than reflect the consensus of academics and experts, or their lack thereof. This would not be a big problem if our policies and guidelines were actually followed and respected and RfC et al. would be based on the strength of arguments backed by academic consensus (or lack thereof) and reliable sources (not cherrypicked ones). They have not only become a vote (the exact thing they should not be) but they have become partisan votes rather than neutral arguments backed by academic consensus and literature, something that you have shown to actually follow. Seriously, is this just me? Davide King (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King Unfortunately, there are some topics where certain individuals hold strong, preconceived viewpoints that aren't amenable to change based on what reliable sources say. There's not much you can do about it unfortunately. Similar issue at the Greek genocide article where there is cherrypicking and biased presentation intimating that there is a consensus that this event was a genocide that inspired the Holocaust (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually had considerable success with RfC rather than fruitless discussions with a couple editors, if you are thoughtful about how you lay it out you can often draw in uninvolved editors who will see that your version is better-founded. But I'm not sure that would be helpful in this case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

admiralty
I think you've jumped the gun there with the move and the updating. Looking at the number and type of articles pointing to Admiralty, the British entity seems the primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GraemeLeggett I found a large number of pages using formulations like "British Admiralty", "British Admiralty", "British Admiralty"  and worse. If the clarification is necessary, it's probably not the primary topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that didn't come up on the talkpage. and doesn't sound a good way to establish primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In situations like those Buidhe quotes above British is an adjective, not part of the name. I think the close was precipitate given both the lack of evidence and the lack of participation. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur the notifications were not of the required standard, the failure to realise the move might be controversial was inappropriate and the execution has been of the move and follow up has been poor. These are not the standards and example I would have expected of a person with administrator/sysop privileges.  If this was not such a high impact it would have been rolled back. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, with all due respect, your statement makes it sound more like a supervote than a neutral closure. In closing, it's really not your place to decide what is and is not a primary topic. It's merely to assess the opinions expressed by other editors, and to leave a discussion open long enough to get a reasonable number of contributions. This clearly did not have anywhere near enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with the accusations of improper close. No admin is a mind-reader and we can't expect them to magically know what will be controversial, especially since the old title was quite irregular (using a common word for a single country's government department) and only three people participated. If Naval and United Kingdom Wikiprojects aren't aware that these discussions are happening, we have a deeper problem than one administrator. BTW, Buidhe, you tagged the close as nac and I'm confused. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "only three people participated". Precisely. Therefore it clearly should have been relisted to garner further opinions, especially given it was over the New Year period when many of us are doing things other than looking at Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * I had no idea I'd done so many. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is just the ones with a MilHist tag on. Goodness knows what the total total is. Er, I mean, no, you've hardly done any. Start pulling your weight. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Esat Uras
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Te Araroa (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Te Araroa (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

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

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