User talk:Buidhe/Archive 17

ANI discussion
Hi, added a suggestion on ANI in which I mentioned you, and your outstanding work. Kust thought to let you know. Using this informal message as the discussion is not about you, just mentions you. Keep up the excellent work! Jeppiz (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You are on the news
Lol, they are so triggered that you are on main-stream news.--Visnelma (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm famous! Thanks for the link. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * —— Serial  11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh good, another group of nationalist zealots stirring the pot because an editor and Wikipedia dare accurately represent an atrocity! Congrats and condolences, Buidhe. Grogudicae👽  11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good job ! By the way, regarding the article, could you perhaps add a little about ethnic cleansing and genocide in the "Ethnic cleansing" section? I wouldn't be surprised if some started drama over the fact that the lede mentions Ethnic cleansing but doesn't have proper content to cover it. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I had said that along for the Kemalist historiography part like a month ago. Then, I added historiography part. I also added Ethnic cleansing section but I didn't have time to improve it. I would like to colloborate. Best regards.--Visnelma (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not trophy, Buidhe. :) -- Victor Trevor  ( talk ) 20:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to give you a barnstar for attracting the enviable ire of disappointed ethnic chauvinists, but seems other have beat me to the congrats. Keep up the good work! -Indy beetle (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Do Not Disturb (book)
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 12:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I was sorry to read...
...that you are the victim of an organized campaign of harassment. We've had our disagreements in the past, but I've always known that you strive for accuracy and factuality, and that you are incapable of being the biased PoV campaigner they paint you as. Hang in, and keep up your good work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Second to that. Thank you for continuing your high-quality edits, and stay strong. I am sure that the whole Wikipedia community will help to protect you from any more vandalism and personal attacks. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied Greece
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey, 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) 09:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tevfik Fikret, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Flossenbürg concentration camp
Why do you assume it's not reliable? It is a museum dedicated to the history of the former German transit camp Dulag 121. Do you assume that the work and research of this institution is biased or not worth recognition? Moreover, Polish prisoners captured during or after the Warsaw Uprising are mentioned in articles about other concentration camps, such as Ravensbrück and Mauthausen. Why not mention here? Plus, why omit Poles and Soviet citizens in the infobox, since those were two of the most numerous groups of prisoners of the camp? It's not an exhaustive listing, it's just a more precise and detailed description. Marcin 303 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just being a museum does not mean it's inherently a reliable source. It would have to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The bar for sourcing is high for World War II atrocities involving Poland. A lot of wikipedia articles have junk in them so I don't see that as being a compelling argument, and the Warsaw Uprising prisoners may be higher proportionally in other camps making their inclusion more WP:DUE. No, your proposal for the infobox is not more precise, for one it implies that the "Poles" are distinct from "political prisoners", which is not the case, and places far more emphasis on nationality (as opposed to the reason for being imprisoned) than most of the high-quality sources do. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Norway-plus
Hi Buidhe

You recently moved this article from to, based on a request at WP:RM/TR, but that doesn't seem correct. I moved the article from Norway-plus to Norway plus in March 2019, more than two years ago, which means the unhyphenated title has had more than enough time to become the stable version. If you look at the page history, you'll also see that the earliest revisions of the page had the title first at Norway Plus and then at Norway plus. In any case, it doesn't seem linguistically right to hyphenate it... looking at a Google search for usage in sources, it appears to be hyphenated when it's an adjective (which is correct) but not hyphenated when it's used as a noun. And our article title is a noun. Please could you revert the move? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , It was the original editor who moved it to the hyphenated form before anyone else edited the article. After close examination of the article history, I'm not really sure what counts as the "stable" version here, but either way it looks like a WP:RM would be in order to settle which name has consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, but it should go back to the prior version in the mean time, not at the version to which it was only moved today. Reverting undiscussed moves is typically for recent moves, and certainly only up to a few months ago. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the instructions, it says "If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted." I'm not sure which is more "stable" so I'm inclined not to move any further without a consensus for one or the other title. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if you're really refusing to undo your move then I'll probably have to re-request it at WP:RM/TR for outside assistance to get it moved back, because this really isn't right or fair. I've been involved with requested moves process for the best part of ten years now, and I have never seen an interpretation that a "stable title" which would not have been reached after more than two years under the same name, with lots of edits by other editors in the intervening period as well. This may seem unimportant, but if we are to have an RM on the subject, then the default for "no consensus" should be the version that was stable. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A quick web search for "norway plus" shows that the hyphenated and un-hyphenated versions are pretty much evenly used. Although I prefer "Norway-plus", I also think it's not worth spending any time discussing which option is "best". As far as I'm concerned, either will do. -- The Anome (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Norway hyphen plus
I may have inadvertently involved you in a minor squall over movement back and forth of Norway-plus. My apologies, I should have left the question open on the article talk page before submitting the RtM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma. Moxy - 00:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 43, March – April 2021 
 * New Library Card designs
 * 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of Talaat Pasha
I changed the spelling because Talaat Pasha uses a different spelling from Assassination of Talat Pasha. I wanted to have a consistent spelling with those articles.

In Talaat's lifetime Turkish was written in Perso-Arabic script instead of Latin script, and it seems there were multiple spellings of Turkish names in Latin at the time. In modern Turkish his name is spelled as "Talat". But in articles of the era it was spelled "Talaat" (see this NY Times article and this one). Modern sources like Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide use "Talaat" too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The spelling with 1 "a" has become more common. (Edit: from the data, you can see that Pasha > Paşa, Talat > Talât, and overall considering all the one-A variants, Talat > Talaat by a considerable margin.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case it might be a good idea to propose renaming Talaat Pasha. I would like to see if there are other methods that can solidify using Talat over Talaat. I know of some editors of Ottoman-era articles who would be happy to take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I did it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Maarakeh close
Hi, I see you've closed the RM but it still needs moving over the redirect. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is sysop move-protected. She has a request in at RM/TR. This is a very common issue that page movers keep telling everyone is an issue and that somehow has not yet resulted in the creation of page mover protection because, uh, inertia or something. Vaticidalprophet 07:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers VP. That clarifies things. Yeah, I thought page mover gave you the necessary permissions to do that but obvs not. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've managed to get a review recently of old sysop-protected pages (so much stuff indef protected 10 or 15 years ago over a two-hour move war...), but the issue of stuff that was move-warred for a bit and immediately brought to RM after protection is still a problem. I'd really like to see a PMR protection level, because as you note, it's not something a lot of editors realize until they're participants in an RM where it comes up. Vaticidalprophet 08:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting Croatian Spring
Thank you for taking time to copyedit Croatian Spring article. I was very happy to see that you have picked up the task knowing that I can expect a quite thorough review - and I was not disappointed. I'm confident that the article benefited greatly because of that. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tomobe03 You're welcome! Please ping me if this gets to FAC, I would be happy to review it there. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentor for first GA review
Hi there. As you are a GA mentor would you mind looking over my first ever GA review? Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Annulled Recipients of the Royal Victorian Chain
Hi. In light of this discussion, you may wish to address Category:Annulled Recipients of the Royal Victorian Chain (and Category:Royal Victorian Chain, for that matter). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1914 Greek deportations
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC Battle of Vukovar
Hi Buidhe. I don’t understand your closing. If there is no consensus and RfCs are not a democratic vote and a RS source states it a military catastrophe, why should it be removed? Not to mention evident canvasing in this RfC. This is RS: The operation Vukovar” ''therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence''." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991. A Serbian author, mind you. OyMosby (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OyMosby As I'm sure you're aware, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It's perfectly reasonable for editors to hesitate to include something, either because they are looking for multiple sources to confirm it or for some other reason. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is there is gaming the system here. As often plagues Balkan related topics as I’m sure you have seen in the past. Some of the apposed votes are minutes between each other of similar topic background simply stating they agree with another user. RfC Wiki states it is not a democratic vote. It was already in the list and the RfC was put forth to remove it. It had been there for a while. If you could take a look at the three sources to verify yourself I’d appreciate it. Even and admin heavily experienced in the topic of military topics of the Balkans agreed. So perhaps again you could take a peak at these sources? One of the apposed voters is Topic Banned now. OyMosby (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly at the very least a new RfC should be put forth that says Should Vukovare me REMOVED from the list. The proposal wasn’t to add it. Especially given the canvasing and T Ban. I think it would be fair and give a chance for honest discussion. OyMosby (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the oppose !votes came from longstanding editors who are not necessarily involved in the Balkans. Some editors noted that there is more sourcing for the 1991 campaign as a whole and my close is consistent for inclusion of the campaign in the list. Ultimately, I think it would be difficult or impossible to read that discussion and find a consensus to include. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am nit discrediting all apposed votes. How many of the against votes are the established editors? Again an RfC should be “Should Vukovar be removed”. I mean this in all due respect to you. I don’t have an issue with the campaign being included. But I think that would need another RfC before adding. As I think the same apposed votes apposed that too. I am for including the whole campaign as that would include Vukovar which multiple sources cite as one of the big ones. Could i make the rfc? OyMosby (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also if I make an RfC for the Yugoslav Army Campaign in Croatia as being a military disaster, should I ping all editors that participate in the last one? I just wanna make sure I’m being completely fair.OyMosby (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you're going to do a RfC on that you should ping either all or none to avoid canvassing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I said “all editors in the last RfC”. Nowhere did I at all said selective pings. Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also for future reference, are Balkan Battlegrounds and Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991, both “revisionist” sources as a user claimed? I ask so that in the future I avoid using them. I posted it in the RS forum to see if they are bad but only got one response saying they are peer reviewed and usable. This was why I was kinda surprised by the RfC result. So just wanted to double check if these are not to be used in the future. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , To get consensus on the reliability of a source RSN is the place to ask. This particular source was also published in Serbo-Croatian by Srpsko narodno vijeće, Arhiv Srba u Hrvatskoj. Someone just saying it's "revisionist" doesn't carry much weight unless they can back up their claims with evidence, which doesn't seem to be the case here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. As you can see the editor who said it was “revisionist” made an account specifically for the removal of Vukovar off the list. It felt like WP: IDONTLIKEIT and a number of other opposing editors just agreed with them. I took it to RSN. I got only one reply saying it is fine and peer reviewed. However that editor that said is was fine was also a Balkan-centric editor so I don’t know if that is good enough. I will add Balkan Battlegrounds as well. I hope someone weighs in. As both sources put Vukovar as a disaster/catastrophe as others pointed out such as who I would think isn’t biased one way or another. I could be wrong. But you can see why I am worried about this precedent. OyMosby (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also never-mind the Canadian. I reached out to a number of admins, all not involved to give their take. Nothing against you as you see here I came to you. After no response from anyone, I emailed thinking they may not be looking on Wikipedia at the time. Apparently that is against the rules? I though so long as the person isn’t connected or involved in these topics directly they would be a good neutral party to ask like yourself. I posted in MilHist as well. Rosguill explained it in a way I better understood and the reasoning makes sense. My mind is at ease. Thanks for your time Bhuide. Take careOyMosby (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I removed Vukovar battle from the article per RfC conclusion just to be done. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Odilo Globocnik
I just noticed today that Odilo Globocnik was moved to Odilo Globočnik without a move discussion in 2018, on the basis of a single comment quoting a single source added by an IP. I don’t have time to investigate thoroughly, but I’m certain this not the common way of spelling his name, but it’s starting to deep into other articles and has even been changed on the page for sources not using the diacritic. Would you be willing to look into this and start a move request if warranted?—Ermenrich (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Most sources on Google Scholar don't spell it with the diacritic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 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/June 27, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Armenian Genocide denial

 * NGL, the heading of this caught me off-guard as I was viewing this to make the post at the bottom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You're in Turkish news!
Hello. I've noticed that there's currently an WP:RSN thread on the reliability of Turkish newspapers (in response to their coverage of edits to Turkish war of independence). Your username has been directly mentioned, both in media sources mentioned on the page, and in at least one other (which I have included in the links). I am leaving this to you as a courtesy, since this might mean a bunch of trolls coming after you soon, and that can be unpleasant. There also might be some future brigading activity associated with this, but this is not my area of editing expertise so I can't point to specific cases as of now. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hitler Youth generation
Hi Buidhe, I created an article for Hitler Youth generation and wondered if you had anything to add to it? Many thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI on Cyprus
You, Sir/Madam are correct in pointing out that "Cyprus and Turkey have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1974." But Cyprus declared independence on August 26, 1960. They had diplomatic relations between 1960 and 1974. Erman Kuzu (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I was taken aback my how quickly our disagreement got personal, but seeing that you have experienced harassment, I got a better understanding where you were coming from. I am sorry you had/have to go through that. Best, Erman Kuzu (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your closure at DNSSEC
Hi, just my comment that you should not write that "there's consensus" when !vote is split exactly 2:1. Such a ratio is precisely no consensus. — kashmīrī  TALK  13:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Closure is not supposed to be a vote count. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But an obvious disagreement among editors is not supposed to be called a consensus either. — kashmīrī  TALK  15:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bhuide wasn’t you closure of the List of Military Disasters based on the vote count despite a RS cited source directly calling it a military catastrophe. You mentioned the vote overrides the source. Vote based popularity? I’m confused. I am not familiar the this new RfC but seems to be again vite ammounts. (Especially if we don’t include the canvased votes just saying they agree with another editor with no explanation than ignoring the source saying catastrophe).... I perplexed at this point. Seems voices the same confusion. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that RfC is different because you only found one source that explicitly supported the entry. I think the RfC would have turned out differently if there were more than one source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I still find the rules about RfCs so confusing to interpret. Even if I had 4 sources, much of the opposed votes would likely stay the same as some just claim “revisionism” in a cynical or skeptical way. OyMosby (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no rules re. the number of sources. RfCs should never be based on vote count but on the strength of arguments and on Wikipedia policies. Same here - any closing editor at DNSSEC should carefully look at the arguments presented by both sides and weigh them against Wikipedia policies. You Buidhe have not done this either at DNSSEC or at the List of Military Disasters, and additionally you did not heed the recommendation that non-admins should NOT attempt to close discussions that are a close call. See, this tends to make more problems than it solves. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Mons [p|P]ocket
Thanks for the close at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket. I think this is the first time in this entire year I have seen a closer explicitly bucking a vote head-count and applying the policy- and sourced-based arguments of the thin minority because they were stronger. Almost everyone else in such a circumstance does "no consensus" and runs away. Kudos for having a spine and following WP:CLOSE correctly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. I criticized you in past for not putting enough emphasis on our MOS at Virtual reality headset, but that was more complicated.  Thanks for standing up for the MOS here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, there's a similar issue on an article you edit a lot: Armenian Genocide. If you look at stats from books, you'll see near half capped; and the contexts where caps are ahead are generally in refernces to titles such as "Revolutionary Genocide : On the Causes of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the Holocaust" and "America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915" and "Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust". Where the context has "is" or "was" instead of "of" or "and", lowercase is in the majority. In any case, it not near the threshold of MOS:CAPS. Let me know if you'd mind if I move it; we can do an RM if you think it's controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon I think it needs discussion. The article has been in its capped form since creation even as other genocide articles such as Rwandan genocide were moved to lowercase. According to NGRAMS it's capped almost 2:1 as often and some authors on the subject pointedly cap as a matter of style. The move if successful would also necessitate moving a bunch of other articles. Also, I think it's move protected. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll start that at some point. But the stats are more 1:1 when you try to account for context as I explained above.  And a lot of that's quite recent, very likely affected by Wikipedia's capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See for the view from 2008, of contexts not likely to be citations to books and articles.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's pretty convincing! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so; and glad you agree. It may be a political hot button with people who, as most, "like to capitalize what's important to them".  We'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't often see an editor putting energy into genocide, holocausts, and over-capitalization simultaneously. I hope you don't mind getting beat up. Not sure which is riskier. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your closure of Elon Musk as engineer
You recently closed the RfC at Talk:Elon Musk stating that There is consensus that Musk should not be described as an engineer. Most editors commenting here note that the great majority of reliable sources (perhaps with a few exceptions) do not describe him as an engineer. Firstly, I'm not convinced that a non-admin closure was appropriate here. The question has been discussed many times, and each time has proven highly controversial. Furthermore, the RfC had only been open for 10 days, whereas 30 days is the norm (per WP:NACRFC). Secondly, as you are aware, an RfC is not a vote. Sure, several editors noted the absence of reliable sources backing the claim, then when reliable sources were produced, claimed undue weight. But it is not at all clear to me that even rough consensus was achieved – especially when WP:JDLI responses are discarded. Indeed, another editor has already reverted an edit that removed "engineer", disputing your closure. I also note that several of your other recent non-admin closures have been challenged, and therefore request that you reopen the RFC, per WP:BADNAC. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You linked to an essay. On the other hand, the instructions for WP:RFC say, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration". The consensus is clear. If someone is editing against the consensus, they should be made aware of it.
 * Every time I close discussions I find that some people are dissatisfied with the outcome and/or the closure. The vast majority of editors do not find fault with my closures, but they're less likely to post on my talk page. If you are dissatisfied with the result, I can't stop you from following CLOSECHALLENGE but I don't think you would get very far with that. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to formally challenge the closure, but I do dispute the claim that consensus is clear and also note that you have been asked several times recently to refrain from making non-admin closures on controversial subjects. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, there are five challenges of your closes on this talk page from the last week. That is not a normal rate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, there are five challenges of your closes on this talk page from the last week. That is not a normal rate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Early European modern humans
Please reverse this close. I don't see how anybody could reasonably see a consensus in this brief discussion: there is the nom, one person giving a reasoned oppose (me), one person giving a reason support, and one person !voting support with no reason. Also two points you make in your summary (that the proposed title better fits the requirement to precisely denote the topic as well as be recognizable to readers) didn't appear in the discussion at all as I far I can tell, making it read as a supervote. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Multiple editors expressed concern that the previous name was too vague: The WP:COMMONNAME for that topic is Upper Paleolithic Europe. Early European modern humans (EEMH) is a vague and rarely used term which in specialist literature mainly refers strictly to the earliest early modern humans of Upper Paleolithic Europe. and "Early European modern humans" was a title created to talk about early modern humans in Europe, which in itself is a poorly defined term (like how early is "early"?) and said that the term Upper Paleolithic Europe was more commonly used: The WP:COMMONNAME for that topic is Upper Paleolithic Europe. If there's just one person who disagrees with several others, the only reason for finding a "no consensus" result is if the others are totally not using policy based reasoning at all. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I don't think you have understood the discussion. Krakkos and Dunkleosteus' both said that the term is poorly defined from a scientific, taxonomic standpoint. There is no dispute about that – but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's article title policy or the "requirement to precisely denote the topic". In other words, the current title precisely denotes a vague term that is commonly used in reliable sources. Similarly, there was no disagreement that the common name for the topic Krakkos described is "Upper Palaeolithic". The disagreement was whether the topic he described is the topic of the article. Tacking unrelated points onto the close is at best an indication that you have not understood the discussion fully, at worst a deliberate supervote.
 * In terms of numbers, "multiple" and "several" is a peculiar way to say "two" (or three, if you're being generous to JMF's five-word contribution). I'm not asking you to close it as no consensus, I'm asking you to reverse your close and keep it open, because only three people have made any comments of substance and there is transparently no consensus amongst us. Please follow WP:BADNAC (#2) and reopen it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to respond, or do I have to take this to WP:MR/WP:ANI? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course there was no consensus, and this is just another example of Buidhe overstepping her authority and going against the WP:NACD: . Two other recent examples are mentioned in the preceding section. Buidhe, please, I would hate to escalate it, but you must stop. Leave all close calls and all controversial discussions to admins – especially the discussions where you are not familiar with the subject and you may not be in a position to evaluate the strength of arguments. Also, please do not term it consensus where there is, doubtlessly, lack of consensus. Thank you. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update
Dear Buidhe,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here. --Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Upper Palaeolithic Europe
An editor has asked for a Move review of Upper Palaeolithic Europe. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is non-admin closes by Buidhe. Thank you. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Improper Move for Pennsylvania German language
The move of Pennsylvania German language to "Pennsylvania Dutch" should not have been made without an admin involved because of the technical issue of a 100% discrepancy between the correct scientific terminology and an incorrect common misnomer. WP:PRECISION is an important issue to consider in the case of scientific terminology versus common usage. There are virtually no linguistic materials describing this language that use "Pennsylvania Dutch" as the label for the language, therefore students of linguistics and the language itself will be perplexed to search Wikipedia for "Pennsylvania German" only to discover that all of their reliable sources for the languages are contradicted by Wikipedia. This is a case where virtually all reliable sources completely contradict "common knowledge". Please revert the move and continue the Talk Page move discussion until an admin weighs in on the issue. This is not an "easy call" that a non-admin should be making. I completely assume that you were acting in good faith, but this isn't one of those issues that any of us should be making a decision on without an actual substantial reason to contradict the sine qua non of Wikipedia: reliable sources. Just counting noses in a request for move is not sufficient. If reliable sources were split that's when WP:COMMONNAME can apply, but this isn't the case here. Wikipedia doesn't make moves based on votes, but on the weight of the arguments and compliance with Wikipedia principles. Please revert your move to conform with the full weight of reliable sources and scientific literature. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that other editors agree with your POV that only academic publications in linguistics should be considered for determining the article title of a language, or that RS does not include some non-academic publications. WP:PRECISION says, "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." Both names unambiguously refer to the same language variety. Being closed by a non-admin is not a reason to overturn a move request. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "There's no indication that other editors agree with your POV" seems to indicate that you did not read the comments of either User:Kwamikagami or User:Nardog. Again, counting noses is not a reason to make a move when the uniform weight of scientific evidence including the judgement of the speakers of the language itself contradicts the average Wikipedia editor.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that you read WP:RS to see that academic, scientific sources are the primary means of determining "reliability". If you doubt the scientific consensus on "Pennsylvania German", then please cite equivalent scientific sources that use "Pennsylvania Dutch".  If you look at the fairly complete linguistic bibliography of the language here, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of scientific, reliable sources use "German".  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing to litigate the matter on the closer's talk when it is clear that will not go further is on many levels poor practice. If you believe Buidhe's close was a miscarriage of justice, WP:MR is thataway. I have to see I haven't seen any of hers go unendorsed there yet. I also have to say she's the single strongest closer working in RMs right now, regardless of hats. Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Pennsylvania Dutch" became increasingly popular in recent 10 years (though previously the "Pennsylvania German" was used more often) so I think I it's safe to reaffirm the closure as favoring Dutch over German. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * if you look at that ngram you'll see that following the period 2005-2012, the two forms have moved precisely parallel and there is not a significant statistical difference between them. In the absence of a statistical difference, the scientifically accurate term should always be preferred.  But User:Vaticidalprophet is correct that this should not be relitigated on User:Buidhe's page since there is a Move Review in progress elsewhere.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The said Move Review is at Move_review/Log/2021_May and is to keep the Dutch so this is safe to close. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR advice
At what point do you think would be wise to quit bugging the coordinators about asking for a sixth nom, and just wait for the fifth one to close so I'm back below five? I've asked three straight weeks, and don't want to continue to be a pain, but I've got a couple of mine that are essentially stalled out with progress being very slow. If it weren't for the giant FARGIVEN backlog, it would be simple to wait, but there's such a backlog that this is going to be a huge undertaking to get through FARGIVEN and URFA.

As an aside, the same issue seems to apply to old featured lists - a large proportion not meeting the standards. I've nominated two for removal in the last two weeks; I imagine I'm about to become persona non grata over there. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm Well, there's a lot of FARs up right now. Can't hurt to be a bit patient, although I bet the coords would not notice if you nominated 6 things anyway. IIRC I did that in the past by accident and they never complained. I don't know what the rules are at FLRC but I would be happy to make nominations, I just don't know what FLs need reassessment. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I approach FLR the same way I approach GAR - if I find one that's obviously deficient, I try to nominate it without overwhelming the system. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't get below 5 for about two more weeks, with the way several of mine are going, but if it gets below 20 before then I'll probably ask for the dispensation. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hello, Buidhe. How do you describe the results of the Manhattan Project? Spoiler (?): Genocide? Genocide denial? Success? Good works, -- Victor Trevor  ( talk ) 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualties of the Armenian genocide
No move discussion, not listed in the RM for Armenian Genocide. How many more pages were excluded from the discussion? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The move was non-controversial as it would need to be consistent with the main article. 2) I don't know. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada close
would explain why you came to the conclusion of not moving the page? how did you assess the !votes?Catchpoke (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There was not WP:CONSENSUS for moving. As noted, the proposed move would change the scope of the article and every other editor who weighed in disagreed with such a change of scope. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of precedent for this:
 * List of the 100 Largest Cities in the United States = : redirected as redundant.
 * List of the 100 largest municipalities in North America = redirect created probably due to it being a supposed search term.
 * Talk:List of the 100 largest cities in Italy by population
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 21
 * List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada = This last one actually listed all of them. The scope of the article is a editorial issue and not a title issue.Catchpoke (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how this works, Buidhe, but in my experience it's almost always the closes I didn't expect to be controversial at all that are disputed by some, while my closes of high participation divided discussions that I expect to be disputed rarely are. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Declining GOCE requests
Hi Buidhe, I noticed your declines of two requests at the GOCE copy-edit requests page and I've opened a discussion at REQ talk about the declines. GOCE members usually discuss declines other than sockpuppets and their masters, and drive-by IP requests, on the talk page. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  00:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Political and military wing
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Political and military wing, 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) 01:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Grammar Nazi" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grammar Nazi. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 01:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Innisfallen
Hi Buidhe, thanks for finishing the moves at Innisfallen. That's great. However, the issues concerning Innisfallen Island which were mentioned a propos have been left unresolved. I have started another move request at Talk:Innisfallen Island. Would you like to look in there and give me your thoughts? --Doric Loon (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would make that a formal RM. It's usually easier to get consensus through that procedure rather than starting a discussion on the talk page, as formal RMs are listed and may attract uninvolved participants. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I've never done that before, but I'm sure I can find out how. But first I want to finish working on another article. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, done it now. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lovely part of the world. I drank too much whiskey there ~20 years ago and missed the boat back. Hey ho! ——  Serial  17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for May 1915 Triple Entente declaration
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Move review for List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada
An editor has asked for a Move review of List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Catchpoke (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

FAC message
Hi Buidhe, I left an opinion following your post at WT:FAC, but would also suggest you tweak your post there to move towards a more bland description of the dispute. CMD (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Query
Calling on your insight on Genocide-related matters, is this category really warranted for a BLP? Seems problematic—surely it could be added to every leadership member of the CCP. Aza24 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dukes
I hope you'll be monitoring for new links following your recent WP:ROBIN move and retarget. Plural redirects invariably collect bad links; for one is notorious, you'd be surprised how many play music or sports. Narky Blert (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus to move was clear. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus for such moves is almost always clear, and attempts to make moves in the opposite direction usually result in WP:NOCONSENSUS. Many editors prioritise saving some users a click over getting all editors to the correct article. I do not.
 * Yesterday, I checked the links-in to poles. One was miscapitalised, two were geographic, one was magnetic, and one was made of wood and supported traffic signs. My report is at WP:BPAT.
 * Links like those give ample opportunity to people who want to hold WP up to ridicule. Narky Blert (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC close wording
The close summary at Village_pump_(proposals) implies that there is a consensus to remove the book tool, whereas the RFC was about the book tool not saving books to the Book namespace. Please could you clarify the close statement — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bathory Cave
I understand that you have closed the request with "no consensus", being the ratio was 2: 1, even if no real arguments were made in favor of the current title (Bathory Cave). Currently, only English Wikipedia and its derivative pages refer the cave to this title. See, Bátori Cave, as a counterexample, which is the official name of the cave. So far I have known that a move request cannot be apostrophized as a simple vote. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for closing is noted: "Editors don't agree what the common name in English is for this cave." No one presented conclusive evidence one way or the other, so no consensus is the inevitable result. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I presented conclusive evidence, but, due to lack of interest, two false "opinions" – it can't even be called that, especially the second one – could offset this in numbers. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of other people comments
Buidhe, I believe you accidentally removed other people comments Could you correct that and place them back in the exact order as they were before please? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did not delete anyone's comment. I edited the page and saved it, perhaps there was an edit conflict. I do not want to add anything back in case I got it wrong. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I’ll try to fix it. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hrant Dink Foundation
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Upload (company)&#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 03:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)