User talk:Buidhe/Archive 16

Thanks for...
...all of your work on "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz" and congratulations on it being the featured article of the day. —  AjaxSmack 00:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the article about "'one of the most bizarre escapes' of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help a Jewish Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee, Siegfried Lederer, went on to smuggle weapons into the Theresienstadt Ghetto."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect English?
I am a native English speaker and I am pretty sure your revert here is incorrect. The correct grammar is lest a "catastrophe" befalls not lest a "catastrophe" befall ConnorMcGregggor (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @ConnorMcGregggor lest is usually followed by a subjunctive. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's correct, subjunctive is a thing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, looks like I was wrong. Thanks. ConnorMcGregggor (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republican Party (Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Realized no one pinged you, so just alerting you that people are trying to forum-shop in your name at WT:RM. Vaticidalprophet 09:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to know. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bugles
Hello. When you closed the RM at Bugles, were you aware of the RM at Talk:Bugle_(disambiguation) that had been closed against exactly the same move just 17 minutes before the Bugles RM was filed? At least 2 of the 3 supporters were aware of it because they had participated there. It doesn't seem proper to open an RM on a different talk page immediately after a discussion on the same move was closed on the first page. Station1 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this discussion but I don't consider it relevant because move requests for multiple pages tend to yield inconclusive results, whereas those for just one page are more likely to have a clear outcome. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were not aware of it, but now that you know that three editors specifically opposed the precise move that you carried out, citing guidelines, statistics and logical problems with the nom, while three editors supported it, including two who participated in both discussions, won't you consider reverting your move and closing as 'no consensus'? Or at the very least reverting and reopening the second RM, so I can point out these facts to another closer? Otherwise, this one must go to WP:MR (I've never done that before, and don't do it lightly) because, although I appreciate your close was done completely in good faith, it's such a blatant case of forum-shopping on the nom's part, and because I believe one non-admin should not overturn the close of another non-admin one week later. Station1 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's forum shopping to follow up an unsuccessful move request for multiple pages with a more tailored one for an individual page. For example, multiple AfD's often are unsuccessful if one page is shown to be notable, but in that case you can renominate individually to determine if a single page is notable. It would have been preferable if someone in the discussion had pinged participants in the earlier move, but I don't see that as necessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a reasonable compromise be to redirect Bugles to Bugle (disambiguation) since as noted there are other uses than just the snack and instrument. That seems like a reasonable compromise per WP:NOPRIMARY.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I suggest that you try WP:RfD if you think there would be consensus for that. At the discussion, there were more people preferring primary redirect. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I was suggesting that over reverting the move as a compromise but otherwise I'll leave it if the move isn't being reopened. In response to Station1's point I'd point out that neither you or anyone else addressed the long-term significance point for the plural though no one addressed the usage point in the 2nd RM. Also one of the users who opposed the move of the instrument supported moving the snack even if there wasn't a consensus in the 1st RM to move the snack.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

American left/Left
I don't think that there was sufficient editor involvement to close the discussion and move the article. One editor proposed a move, one opposed and one was a sock. TFD (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the only oppose was from a sock, I believe it's appropriate to treat as an unopposed move. (t · c)  buidhe  19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The most common usage is to capitalize the Left and the Right. See for example, The Chicago Manual of Style: "the Left; members of the left wing; left-winger(s); on the left the Right; members of the right wing..." The American Library Association recommends "the Left." The Encyclopedia of the American Left uses capitalization. There have been discussions on this issue in other articles and in general editors have agreed to use capitalization.
 * The one editor who did respond said they wanted to see more input from editors. I suggest we re-open the request, so I saw that as opposed, at least until other editors had responded.
 * TFD (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Look at the NGRAM results. I'll reopen if you insist, but consider that MOS:CAPS requires that it be "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That ngrams query tells the wrong story, because in the upper case version, Left is clearly a noun, whereas in the lower case version, it could be any number of parts of speech ("the American left| the room/ in a hurry/ to pick up her husband /some on his plate..."). As it turns out, the top 10 words in trigrams starting "American left" are: and, flank, in, the, was, has, is, to, wing, and on. But that still doesn't tell us how it compares with "American Left", although we can assume that the latter is always, or nearly always a noun phrase.  However, if you restrict both of them to noun phrases only, then you get a very different picture than the one you came up with, with the jump in "American Left" taking place exactly where one would expect it, and the caps noun phrase roundly defeating the other. I don't have an opinion how the RM should be decided, but if you're going to rely on data to help decide it, let's start with the right data.  Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The ngram shows that since 1987 there are more hits for "American Left" than "American left." Bear in mind that the terms left and right only came to be applied to political ideology early in the 20th century, which is where the first examples of capitalization are found. The 19th century sources used the term "the American left" to refer to the left flank of U.S. army formations.
 * A quick perusal of Google books hits shows that capitalization is more frequent, especially in higher quality sources. On the first page of a Google book search for "american left" seems to show fairly consistent capitalization. Only David Horowitz's book used lower case, although I could not access all the books listed. His book would not meet rs.
 * So I think it is probably best to re-open the discussion.
 * TFD (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This Is a Robbery: The World's Greatest Art Heist
Thank you for your help with This Is a Robbery: The World's Greatest Art Heist. I recreated the article so quickly because I was concerned the user that moved it to draft space was considering recreating the article themselves. I have seen it happen before. I guess I should have waited 60 more seconds! Best, Thriley (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Casualties of the Rwandan genocide
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Casualties of the Rwandan genocide, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Demographic engineering
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of Turkey and 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! 4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Great famine in Greece
I've corrected the 150,000 estimation you provided since this number is limited to 1941 and not the entire period of Nazi occupation.Alexikoua (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

List of genocides by death toll
Somebody put the Foibe massacres as a genocide on the page but the main page has no sources that say it is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

Thanks for William Lyon Mackenzie
Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Page move
Hey there Buidhe, How are you? I hope you are having a great time!

What I wanted to talk about is this page move. I believe this move was closed prematurely, as many other editors were yet to comment there. So, yesterday I proposed a new request for move which was closed by Joshua, citing WP:MR, which I wasn't aware of before. WP:MR suggest to use closer's talk page to resolve the issue. So it is my humble request to please reopen the disussion that you had closed.

Regards. LearnIndology (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for commenting here. The move was open for a full 7 days and there was a clear consensus against it. Opposing editors cited policy-based rationales such as I admit that "Vedism" is certainly in use among specialists but it is by no means a COMMONNAME. See the Google ngram viewer. I can't stop you from going to Move review, but I doubt you would get a different outcome. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it was open for 7 days, but given the nature of the topic, it required more time. Many editors commented after the discussion was closed, views of some editors changed at the last moment. I am just asking for some more time. Regards. LearnIndology (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Shouldn't the discussion have been relisted since all of the comments there were from WP:RMT and it was there for a few days so many people will probably have missed it and thus not participated.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ayşe Gül Altınay
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Varna move
Hi Buidhe, I keep edit-conflicting with you in cleaning up after the Varna requested move; since you seem to be completing the tidying up, I will leave the remainder to you. Please do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sarup & Sons
At Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311 you said that Sarup & Sons, publishers, should be deprecated. Do you intend to set up an RfC?

I noticed that the definition of National conservatism in its book the Dictionary of Public Administration (2007) is identical to the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article version as at 12:18, 5 August 2006. An editor added the source after I nominated the article for deletion in 2010.

TFD (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD Thanks for posting. Does it really need a RfC, though? If you see the source being cited you can just remove it and refer to the prior discussions. (t · c)  buidhe  20:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will do that. TFD (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gerda left you a new message on the nomination page. Please complete the review as soon as possible, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the Great
Thanks again, Buidhe, for the edits on Frederick the Great. I think you did great work that I'm less comfortable doing. I appreciate it. I wanted to ask, however, when you ported over references to a new article when splitting them, you mentioned you used scipt(s). Could you possibly point me toward them, so I can make my own work a bit easier when I have to move references across articles? Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wtfiv The script I used is User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer. Glad I was able to help with the article! (t · c)  buidhe  07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK review for TU Delft Library
Hi Buidhe, I've addressed your comments on Template:Did you know nominations/TU Delft Library and done the QPQ review. Whenever you have a chance to have a look. Thanks. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Sultanate of Ifat&#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 21:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for ASİMKK
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Portugal and the holocaust
Hello: a regular editor with whom I have worked with a few times on the military history boards was asking for some assistance in relation to this article (copy edit and NPOV) and you came to mind. The article is Portugal and the Holocaust. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinate error in template
When you created Template:Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects map, you included invalid coordinates for the "label15" parameter: (minutes of longitude ≥ 60). Presumably, the "64" is just a typographical error, but I don't know what you intended. Can you fix this? Deor (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tibesti thanks
Hey, I just wanted to leave a quick note of thanks here re the Tibesti Mountains FAC. The fact that you were the deciding jurist on its archiving is irrelevant. I think you were objectively fair and I respect that. I imagine that it's an enormous amount of work performing source/image reviews, etc. (not to mention the other work I noticed on your user page), and frankly that's cool as hell. Cheers from the middle of nowhere. Brycehughes (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Brycehughes Thanks for your work on that article... my FAC for The Holocaust in Slovakia initially failed for similar reasons, so I understand how frustrating it can be. (t · c)  buidhe  10:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think frustrating is the word. I gave it my best shot and I'm honestly pretty happy with it. I also think I cheated a bit because I got free peer reviews... I didn't know PR existed before this facepalm. I'll likely let it sit for another 10 years, though I doubt my writing style will ever be very amenable to FAC. Thanks again for all your work. Brycehughes (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

LGBT ideology
What happened to the article? I've been doing a lit review recently and the topic seems notable. Although it might have not been a year ago, it is now (I found several academic sources in Polish, published in 2020, discussing this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

FApages (reader facing)
I noticed you recently created FApages (reader facing) - are you intending to use it anywhere? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can post your comments here. Please do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Coldest Winter (song) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coldest Winter (song) 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/Coldest Winter (song) (2nd nomination) 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. --K. Peake 09:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Assassination of Talat Pasha
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Content alert
Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FTFY  :)   ——  Serial  15:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL! 😂😂🤣🤣 You just made my day, ! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Failed round-robin move
Hello, Buidhe. It looks like you recently tried to carry out a move involving Karemlash and Karamlash, but you left them as redirects to each other and there does not appear to be a valid version in the history of either page. I hope you can figure out what went wrong and recover the content of the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I found it at Karamlesh. However, this page-swapping script seems to be generating a lot of errors; it would be appreciated if you would double-check the results every time you use it, both for articles and for their talk pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I must not have double checked that one as indeed I should do every time. Thanks for fixing it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Armenian Genocide denial
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish war conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erik Sjöberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Assassination of Talat Pasha
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Assassination of Talat Pasha you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
Thank you for your contributions to the Armenian Genocide related articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Armenian Genocide. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Look, I appreciate your intentions, but you are completely wrong on this matter and the sources you present are not credible. It is a bit frustrating when a user who neither knows Swedish nor Swedish politics insist on inserting factual errors. You are completely wrong on this, unfortunately Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2021 (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 Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Buidhe. Thank you.--Visnelma (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Assassination of Talat Pasha
The article Assassination of Talat Pasha you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Assassination of Talat Pasha 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 Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Turkey and the Holocaust
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

List advice
Howdie,

Over the last few weeks you have provided some sound advise on lists, I was wondering if I could get your input again? I had a little mess around with List of British brigades of the Second World War yesterday, to see if it could be whipped into shape akin to the division list. A few tables, sources, and a brief amount of detail ballooned the list. Doing the same for the main portion (which is missing a lot of brigades) is going to surely send it over the recommend page limit. Any advice on making this a useful list (leaving it along, carrying, splitting into numerous lists?)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc, Yeah, I agree that if this list is filled out all the way, it would be too long. I would advise a split. Perhaps List of British airborne brigades of the Second World War, List of British anti-aircraft brigades of the Second World War, etc. Then your main list would just link to the sublists similar to List of Nazi concentration camps. (t · c)  buidhe  22:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advise. I have started work on the first of them, located here: User:EnigmaMcmxc/sandbox. The proposed navbox I have added to the bottom, would that past the mustard as compared to the old British Army list template (that you advised removed from the divisional article)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc, Yes, looks great! Also, FYI many editors prefer navboxes at the bottom of an article to sidebars all things being equal. (t · c)  buidhe  13:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi buidhe, Thank you for that feedback on the Knowledge of the Holocaust page! I'm actually editing this page as part of a university subject and I've made the mistake of uploading my edits too early. So after my tutor checks it and whatnot, I'll reupload my edits and have the page references as well. So if you find the page is reverted back, that's the reasoning behind it. The edits you've seen plus more will be uploaded in the next few weeks. Kind regards May12278899

May122789 (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 

Removing the talk page postings of others
Please don't do this. If you think the postings are irrelevant, reply to them and say why (or collapse them). Thanks, Black Kite (talk)

Thank you for your work on The Thankful Poor FAC
Hello Buidhe, thank you for your invaluable work on image review / source checking as well as peer review suggestions. FA promotion would not have been possible without you. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarify RfC consensus: LAPD
Could you clarify whether the RfC consensus at the LAPD page is NOT for saying the LAPD "has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, and discriminatory policing" but for the LAPD "has a history of police brutality, corruption, and discriminatory policing." An editor is claiming that the RfC is for the attributed pov, which is something that the RfC was not about and which no one who commented asked for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit also entails rewording the RfC language in a way that softens the language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bad close. The implications are that RfC creators must now ask whether verbatim language has approval or not, because any lack of specificity will be misused by tendentious editors to claim that no consensus exists for any specific language. This has the impact of making RfCs useless at finding consensus on pages where tendentious editors try to block any and all changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don't think that the RfC participants settled on any specific language or phrasing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This was a good and fair close, Buidhe. Thanks. Snooganssnoogans' accusations of tendentiousness are improper. I will take the high road regarding their editing on the page. Crossroads -talk- 01:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe you should retract the closure per WP:BADNAC: "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." The outcome of that RfC cannot be that it was unclear whether the LAPD misconduct was WP:YESPOV or should be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE when (1) The RfC question said nothing about attributed opinions, (2) There were countless peer-reviewed sources that covered the misconduct as systemic and extended, and (3) There was a clear consensus for inclusion of the content asked about in the RfC question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you should run RfA, so people will stop showing up on your talk page when you make high-quality, well-reasoned closes they disagree with to dispute NAC technicalities. Looking forward to supporting 🙂 Vaticidalprophet 13:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jewish cemetery of Salonica
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Order of Suvorov
What exactly made you decide to say that the Order of Suvorov is "nondefining"? ~7000 (counting all classes of the award) were issued. When a regimental commander received it, their unit got officially renamed to include the Order of Suvorov name in it just like the guards designation. When Yevdokiya Bershanskaya (the only woman ever awarded it) got it, it was HUGE. Sure, it wasn't defining for the high-ranking generals like Zhukov who had a bazillion medals, but for those people, even their gold stars (literally highest medal) were't the defining moment of their careers - for most recipients, it was very defining. Please don't nominate Soviet and Russian categories for deletion just because they look sparse, Russian and Soviet history topics like biographies are incredibly lacking in enwiki and as such articles on those topics are usually of poor quality lacking good detail. This is not the first time stuff like this has happened. In the past, the category for one of the biggest (if not biggest) cemeteries in Tatarstan was nominated for deleted because it didn't have enough people in it and no english article (of course, Russian wiki had an article and it's category there was huge, but of course, enwiki nominator didn't bother looking there.) Please withdraw your nomination - good editors trying to improve coverage of Soviet history topics are absolutely SICK of the category deletion wars and having to defend every relevant category created.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories
I've looked at just how many categories you are pushing for deletion and they ALL have the same thing in common - they LOOK like the award is non-defining if you ONLY look at the people who have english wikipedia articles (since enwiki is the most notable fraction of recipients due to foreign language translation deficiency) and only if you think an award needs a paragraph of eleboration to be "defining". Guess what? Soviet awards are different. The non-defining awards almost never mentioned. If it's defining, it gets mentioned, even briefly. If you knew ANYTHING about those awards you'd know they're worth categorizing by, nothing to scoff at like the jubilee medals or other nothing medals. It is TIRING to have to monitor categories to stop deletions so as not to have to re-create them and re-categorize everyone just because of users like you who have your heart set on purging Soviet award categories before even 10% of people from the eastern bloc notable enough for wikipedia articles get them in order to fill up the categories. Please, please STOP. Stuff like this DRIVES AWAY EDITORS by wasting time in nonsense deletion arguments instead of producing mainspace edits like creating articles to help FILL those very categories so that people like you don't have such a warped idea of who they were awarded to in the first place. It's fine to go after awards that were used as jubilee medals/given out like candy, like the Order of the Patriotic War category, but the Order of Lenin and Order of Suvorov really just looks like trolling. You are wasting everyone's time, because this wiki will NOT go without those categories, because I have written and edited biographies of people defined by those awards, and many more on my to-do lists, and I will NOT let some run-of-the-mill spree-deleter wipe those important categories away and put a damper on ability to categorize my biography articles in the future. So knock it off PLEASE.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at ruwiki and it doesn't look any different. Maybe try WP:AGF? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't look very hard and have a very extreme starndard for "defining" that is clearly problematic. You should notice that biographies ALWAYS mention when a person is awarded Order of Suvorov among their top awards, even stubs have it in the ribbon rack. The non-defining awards like medal for Courage, medal for battle merit, campaign and jubilee medals, usually don't get mentioned AT ALL. Most HSU articles don't have a paragraph for the details of how someone got the Order of Suvorov, because rarely does it drone on in excessive detail (often HSU biographies are very short, bland and simple, compiled and copied from official soviet biographies with little personal detail), but it is NEVER ommitted from lists of awards that people received because it is a big deal to have the order of suvorov. To call it a non-defining award puts this rare and truely defining award (if you had it, you were an officer at some point) in the same level of unworthiness of categorization as the trivial jubilee medals. How about you show some respect for the people that are the backbone of wikipedia - the miniscule number of editors producing the bulk of article content throught tireless and thankless translation and research work (not research as in original research, but research as in i-finally-found-that-book) only for it to get nitpicked by the hordes of users who want to start fights about categories? I'm not going to create more articles if I can't even put them in the categories that define them well by the high awards they received! Why is getting rid of such benign categories so important to you in the first place? How would you feel if you worked hard on producing articles only for the bulk of edits to the article to be made by bots removing significant categories that defined the subject just because an ill-informed user with a stick up their ass and the world's narrowest definition of "defining" wanted those categories gone? This isn't tolerable. No other wiki has ever even CONSIDERED deleting the categories for the Order of Suvorov and Order of Lenin recipients, it is universally understood that they are key awards - enwiki would be a loner as the only major wiki without those categories (while dozens of smaller wikis have it) - all because of an over-zealous deletionist spreading disinformation about the importance and "definingness" of the awards. So STOP. NOW. Withdraw the deletion nomination. Frankly, an award given ONLY to the most distinguished officers is inherently defining. We can end the discussion the easy way by you saving face and withdrawing it now, or you can waste my time more preventing more important articles from being created by making me divert my time to this nonsense instead - but the end result for the category will be the same, because there's no way in hell those cats are going away. Just a matter of how much you are willing to bother more productive users.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the Scrubbed
Hi Buidhe.

I see that you've been coming back to clean up Frederick, especially the images. I appreciate your aesthetic eye. I think putting a "completed" version of the only work he sat for is a great move, though it'll be interesting to see if the watchers want to put back the "iconic" image. What I'd like to request, however, is that you left the image of the actual, unfinished work by Ziesenis on the site, so we have duplicate pictures. I'll leave it to you whether we should delete that one or replace with the "iconic" (which doesn't align with his age, like the Ziesenis one currently does.)

Also, I can see why you deleted the painting by Anna Dorothea Therbusch. It's not exactly the heroic, great picture, and as you stated, I think I get what you mean by image sandwiching. Surface-wise, I can see the reason for removing it. However, I do think that whoever the editor who put it in was, that editor did a great move: Is there any chance you'd be willing to reconsider and place it better in the article. Yes, it is a bit of a clash, but it is has a bit of positive subversion to it, which I think, reflects well on Frederick via its depiction of his human side. If you are open to it, could you fix these two issues: cleaning up Ziesenis and reconsidering and the role of Therbusch's portrait in the article? Wtfiv (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * She's of Polish ancestry, which is an ironic commentary on the partition
 * It's great to see a female artist getting presented and have readers tempted to click on her name to learn more about her. Women, even  Madame Châtelet gets short shrift in masculinized history.  And, in the arts, this is particularly severe.
 * The painting captures a side of Frederick that doesn't mesh with the he-man image. There's a kind of sensitivity to it- apparently, or perhaps ironically, almost clumsy- which seems to humanize Frederick.
 * Wtfiv I'm not really an expert on eighteenth century art, so I didn't really appreciate the value. Anyway, I put back the Therbusch painting. Sorry for the jargon: "sandwiching" is what's going on with the images in this talk page section and it's not desirable (see MOS:IMAGELOC) because it causes display issues on some devices and often goes along with unencyclopedic overuse of images. (t · c)  buidhe  06:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Very cool! Thanks.  I don't know if you can tell, but I'm fairly minimal on changes, particularly deletions. Not because I don't think changes are important, Mainly, my focus is citation/claim alignment with the added focus on trying to find interesting, publicly accessible sources.  So, I appreciate your active approach to editing and cleaning the article to make it Wikipedia "healthy".  I'm less comfortable with cutting the work of other editors.  But, so far the multitudinous Frederick watchers seem okay with the "bold" changes you've made.  I'm certainly good with it, as long as the open-access references find a home, which they have.


 * Would you be able to find an alternative to the other Ziesenis picture in Austrian Succession section? Pure deletion is a possible response, substitution is better, or maybe better, substitution in the appropriate location.  As previously mentioned, the aesthetics of images is  something you have a good eye for. (Can you tell, I think still think that addition of the poster was a great move?  I suspect other watchers thought so too!  It too has a subtle subversiveness to it and serves as a kind of capstone.) Wtfiv (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Talat Pasha
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Assassination of Talat Pasha has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I add a "clarification" tag in the Trial section. Multiple referfences are made to a Gollnick in the article, but I could find no mention of their first name. Best of luck with the FA when you get to it. Otherwise, I had no issues or questions.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a great article. I really enjoyed reading it - learnt a lot.  (And topical!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement
In reply to your question: The Independent quotes the Pope: "'Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,' he was quoted as saying. 'Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognise the order of creation. With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator. The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate. God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth. The design of the Creator is written in nature.'" The headline writer transformed this into the click-bait: "Pope Francis compares arguments for transgender rights to nuclear arms race". That's a comical attempt at stirring controversy: there was no clear comparison made between those things. Mentioning two things in short succession doesn't mean that they're being compared (and the source doesn't even tell us if they were side by side, given the "he was quoted..." break). I lack the desire to correct these misrepresentations (even when they're against consensus, such as using headlines as sources) in this sort of topic, so if you think it's an accurate and fair summary of what was said, leave it as is. I won't intervene further. EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lehava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sodom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Greek case scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 2, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - which will be based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or for Featured Articles promoted recently from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, "about a little-known episode in the late 1960s, in which Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands ganged up on Greece intervened on behalf of Greeks who were wrongfully detained, tortured, or victimized by other human rights abuses under the Greek junta. The damning findings of the European Commission of Human Rights exposed the junta's brutal methods and led to its exit from the Council of Europe, the only country to leave to date despite threats of a Ruxit."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Third Battle of Winchester
Thank you for looking at Third Battle of Winchester. I combined some of the sections, but perhaps I am still missing something. I combined some of the major "==" sections, and I see two more that possibly could be combined. Are the "===" and "====" sections the real problem? The one "====" section could go without the header, and some of the "===" sections too—provided I rename some sections. TwoScars (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TwoScars Yes, I was mostly referring to the === headings. The == headings look good. Basically, regardless of what level the heading is at, I try to aim for 2-4 paragraphs enclosed (if there are no lower-level subsections). Too long sections with no subheads breaking them up can also be difficult to read, usually I'm needling people to insert more subheads! (t · c)  buidhe  16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I will work on cutting back the subheads. TwoScars (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review - Devins
During the discussion regarding the "integrity" of the reviews such as Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1, my quick failed review for the article Murder of Bianca Devins, by the same reviewer and with the same template, was mentioned. On the GA2 page, I requested a clarification on the article's 'instability' to no avail. I understand Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA1 has been redacted by you. Should a similar occurrence happen for this one? DMT biscuit (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Open Wounds
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers for GAR!
I really appreciate you taking the time and trouble to do all these GARs! It's no fun un-promoting formerly good content, but it's necessary to keep the process honest. Cheers! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Hello B. I hope you are well. You should be aware of this Administrators'_noticeboard since the SPA who opened it is unlikely to let you know. Regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Making of Modern Turkey
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)