User talk:Buidhe/Archive 23

Promotion of Röhm scandal

 * Congrats!! Will try to take another look at Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany FAC soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for the article, introduced: "First, there's the Nazi who became the world's first openly gay politician—in 1932. Then, there are the anti-Nazis stirring up a scandal against him, wielding every pre-existing homophobic canard and inventing a new one: that "the heart of the Nazis’ militant nationalist politics lay in the sinister schemes of decadent homosexual criminals". Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is as a microhistory in Weimar-style competitive authoritarianism. When your elected representatives start beating each other up in parliament, that's when you know democracy is dead..."! - Prayer for Ukraine - the pic I took in 2009 is on the German MP today, with a song from 1885. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for Assassination of Talaat Pasha, introduced: "After shooting the main perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, Soghomon Tehlirian said, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer". His defense was so successful that, as noted by one newspaper, "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant’s bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive." The jury agreed with Tehlirian. But can extrajudicial killing ever "uphold the moral order of mankind"? Raphael Lemkin thought so; he later said that it was this assassination and the resulting spectacular trial that sparked his interest in war crimes, eventually leading to his invention of the concept of genocide."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Using Google Trends for WP:COMMONNAME
I was reviewing this discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1026572059#Requested_move_27_May_2021 and you were debating whether to use "seyfo/sayfo/assyrian genocide". I wasn't sure if using this https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=assyrian%20genocide,seyfo,sayfo ever crossed your mind, but if it didn't, now you now have another tool to inform how to determine the common name for other articles.

It's really interesting because if you look at the breakdown by region "Assyrian Genocide" tends to be used where there's more Eastern ethnic Assyrians (Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean) and Seyfo is used where there's more Western ethnic Assyrians (Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic).

Also "Seyfo" is searched way more than "Sayfo".

Another tip is that you can use the "OR" operator to deduplicate search results like this https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Seyfo+OR+Sayfo%22+genocide&hl=en&as_ylo=2010. Sometimes the search results are spurious, imo summing the number of citations in the first few pages (top matches) is a better approach. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:7CE1:2F12:AFAF:1A2B (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IP 2600: You may not use Google trends ever for determining the WP:COMMONNAME of a topic. Trends measures user queries and nothing else; usage of the terms in question is completely excluded from Trends. Putting it another way as a Q&A:
 * Q: What percentage of the data presented by Google Trends reflects the content of reliable sources?
 * A: 0.0%. None of the data presented by Google Trends represents reliable sources.
 * The results of Google scholar are quite different, and are certainly reliable sources in almost all cases (except for some predatory journals), so they may certainly be used for judging WP:COMMONNAME. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up: your OR query was malformed: it should be, not   which erroneously includes the OR operator within the quoted expression. In this particular case, it doesn't matter, because Google's query rewrite capability reinterprets your query with the logical OR operator excluded from the query, but that won't necessarily always be the case, so in general, be sure to exclude the OR from your quoted query expressions. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, yes you're right, search queries themselves are not reliable sources. And thanks for catching the syntax error in the query as well.
 * I'm gradually figuring out how things work on wikipedia and informative comments like this are tempting me to actually create an account. Here's an apple for being a good teacher 🍎
 * 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:E149:D4BB:6636:C359 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Peacing out for a while
Hey Buidhe - I'm gonna be peacing for a while. Through our rapport the past few days I've learned a lot about withholding bias and applying an evidence based approach to understanding history. Thank you again for all your work 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mass rape
Template:Mass rape has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of Sbircia la Notizia Magazine article
Hi Buidhe, could you please review the page Sbircia la Notizia Magazine? Thank you--Basilio007 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

GAR Reassessment
Glad youre chipping those GAR request at the articles bit by bit, there are just so many awful GA articles like for example Zytglogge and American popular music. 2001:4455:364:A800:F019:2C8:D5A4:FC57 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, thanks for your efforts but it's especially helpful if you list the shortcomings of the articlo on the talk page. For example, for Zytglogge there are four citation needed tags but I'm not sure what else might be wrong with it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nuremberg trials
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nuremberg trials 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Covenant (Halo)/GA2
Do you have plans on closing this review soon? Its been going on since September. GamerPro64 04:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Torture
The article Torture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Torture 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 Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

List of non-mouse controllers by Apple, Inc. move
This was a page split, of material which had existed in more-or-less this format for something like fourteen years. Moving it to draft is probably not the right thing to do. Templating me as if I'm a rank newbie is definitely not the right thing to do. Whatever button you pushed to make this happen, I would advise thinking twice about pushing it in future without the bare minimum of due diligence in checking how exactly a new page came into existence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant how many edits you have. In fact, the more experienced you are the more I would expect you to know that all mainspace content should have a verifiable source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So tag it. Hell, delete it if need be. Draftspace serves a specific purpose, and this ain't it. I'd rather it didn't become a graveyard that people used to bypass the usual deletion process. I assume this wasn't your intention, but the outcome is the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've now moved this back. If you feel so strongly about it, take it to AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Thumperward - There are two problems with the list. First, and more seriously, it has no references, and so is not verifiable, and User:Buidhe was giving you a chance to add references.  Second, it is list cruft.  If  you provide the references, then the community can decide whether it should be deleted as list cruft or kept.  The two places for articles with no references are draft space and AFD, and you have made your choice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with image licensing
I would like to use File:USS Varuna drawing.jpg for an article, but the licensing needs worked out a bit. It was originally tagged as a work of a US Government employee in the course of their duties, but that appears to be false so I have removed it. The image source on DANFS indicates that it was produced in 1904, but that does not seem to necessarily represent the publishing so the current pre-1927 tag on their isn't really sufficient. The creator of the drawing, R. G. Skerrett, has been dead since 1947. If I've understood things right, the image should have gone out of copyright 70 years after Skerrett died, and would have entered the public domain in 2017, but that may not be right and I'm not 100% sure how to licensing tag it even if it is Hog Farm Talk 20:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation seems to be correct, I dug up an archive link and it does not indicate that the underlying artwork is a US gov work. We can't rely on PD-unpublished because it was published at least by 2002, before the copyright would have expired. Relying on the Hirtle chart and assuming it wasn't published before 1989, it is likely that this copyright will expire on 31 December 2047. :( Sorry. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've replaced with File:USS Varuna rammed by CSS Stonewall Jackson.png, which was verifiably published in 1887, so that's PD. It's a shame, given that the previous image had been quite good quality, while the only PD replacements are rather grainy and less detailed. Hog Farm Talk 23:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned list-defined references when trimming Mars
Hi there! I thought I'd let you know that when you trim content in Mars, you sometimes remove some references that are list-defined which get orphaned and leave a citation error; which I guess isn't so nice to look at, especially in a featured article. I think might be helpful to remove those references in that case. Satricious (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Million Award for Nuremberg trials
Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop edit war and vandalism
@Buidhe: @HouseOfChange: do not move the Russian disinformation page again without discussion. Neither of you has previously made a single edit to either the article or the talk page and you appear not to have read either one at all. If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there. To show up there in tandem with another editor who also has never touched the article, minutes after I told you on another page that you don’t understand the reliable sources policy, is blatant edit warring and only proves my point. You cannot prove a preponderance of RS if you do not understand RS. Please go read the reliable sources policy: WP:RS Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no edit warring or vandalism on my part. WP:NPOV is not optional and you should avoid moving controversial articles without discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I started to type out a long answer about what is the Gerasimov doctrine but really, you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have and have harassed me enough for the day. Twelve hours in, I am all out of AGF. Go read the article. Then join any one of the discussion sections on the talk page and you will be welcome. But you are assuming you and your jejeune assumptions know more about a term of art than the Marine University. Meanwhile I came back here to see if you were a page patroller or anything because that affects which noticeboard I post this to. If you want a page about Russia and Ukraine hacking each other, go write one, but good luck with that because I am hundreds of hours into the topic and I am pretty sure that isn’t what is happening. Russia makes fake videos about Azov Brigade, and Zelenskyy makes speeches. His government may or may not be manipulating Telegram; open question. That is PR and conceivably could be called an information war,!but using that definition so could the Gettysburg Address and “Friends, Romans and countrymen, lend me your ears”. And for Christ’s sake, read the RS policy Elinruby (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * correction - I see you aren’t the editor with a whole two years in. That’s the one that wants to AfD an article that editor hasn’t read either. My apologies. You have been doing this less than two thirds as long as I have. Elinruby (talk)

Explain why you reverted my edit
Hi @Buidhe, I'm new to this and don't completely understand why the sections outlining Paul Massaro's career weren't up to standard--especially the factual statements about the legislation he worked on. Why is it ok to say he was quoted by a bunch of news orgs but not cite his actions in Congress as outlined by said articles and interviews? Thanks! Countercorruption (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * For a statement like "Paul was involved in the public campaign for financial transparency and oligarch sanctions, asset seizure and asset forfeiture." it is not sufficient to cite a bunch of interviews he did, because that would be WP:original research, which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Such sources could only support statements like, "After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Massaro said X" (and there would be issues with WP:DUE). To be honest, I'm not sure this guy is notable. Yes, he's done a lot of interviews but I'm not seeing anything in terms of in-depth coverage. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. I didn't source the article comprehensively, so I'll rebuild based on your feedback. Countercorruption (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One more question: Does a news org citing a tweet and writing about it count as a secondary source? I can't find a direct answer on this. Countercorruption (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on if they just quote a tweet (no) or write independent analysis of it (yes). There's a bit of a gray area there (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure I understand the removal of "He completed a master's degree in public policy with a specialization in international security and economic policy from the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, where he is pursuing a PhD." I understand that "public policy with a specialization in international security and economic policy" was flagged as a copyright violation but it's the name of a degree. How else would you phrase that? Countercorruption (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And what do you generally do when the name of an institution is flagged as a copyright violation? Countercorruption (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Name of institution can't be changed, just ignore it. I would either "quote" the degree to clarify that it's the exact words being used, or else rephrase it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain why you reverted my edit? Where is the citation that supports that claim?
 * There's an entire section for it, search "gold". MOS:LEADCITE means there is no requirement to cite the lead (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied to reply too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Milošević
Another user,, is insisting that when I made this edit in 2018 that undid a change you did, that you continue to still agree with their position and disagree with mine, despite the fact I elaborated that edit in Talk:Milošević back then. Disregarding for a moment that their argument is tenuous as a glaring breach of WP:TALK and WP:EDITWAR, I still wanted to explicitly reach out to ask you - did you happen to miss that change back then and do you instead still wish to advocate for that position? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The situation where Milošević redirects to Milošević (surname) is untenable because of dab rules. If the surname is the primary topic, it should be moved to the base name. However, the president is clearly the primary topic: for example, all of the top 30 results on Google Books for "Milošević" are about the president. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't confirm that, for me the search at https://www.google.com/search?q=Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87&pws=0&tbm=bks is indeed littered with Slobodan but there's also a mention of a Bosiljka Bosa Milošević, a book from 1969, a book from 1975, a 1986 book by a Nikola Milošević within the top 30 results. As neither of those two people are actually listed as notable at Milošević (surname), it's doubtful that we can consider Google Books' algorithm as something very authoritative. Did you see the traffic pattern arguments I made at Talk:Milošević? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really care enough to argue this point. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, if you still change your mind about that, Talk:Milošević (surname) is a new venue. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 49, January – February 2022 
 * New library collections
 * Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

help with Bach
Thank you for your image reviews for Bach's No. 1 and now No. 56! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ike for President (advertisement)
buidhe, the nominator has withdrawn the hook you approved, and proposed two more. Please stop by when you get a chance and check these new hooks. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Sayfo
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Torture
—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Torture in popular culture
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Russia in the Council of Europe
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Crime of aggression
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you, - needed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, Buidhe! It's nice to meet you. recommended you to me as someone who is good with image copyright. I have a question for you: Would it be okay if I uploaded a few classical music concert advertisements from Finnish newspapers from the 1890s? (Gosh, when I say it out loud, it sounds just so comically narrow and obscure.) These would be Jean Sibelius ads that I would utilize for articles that will likely go through FAC. The ads, e.g., for Kullervo are here (headline 'konsertin') and here (headline 'konsert'). Many thanks for you time. Warmly ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * happy to help, these ads are quite simple so I would just use PD-text. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Buidhe! I have uploaded the images consistent, I believe, with your advice. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Externalization (migration)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Monica Asman religious sister and mosquito geneticist
Thank you for reviewing this page. Much appreciated. I've made changes to address the issue you noted This article or section contains close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source. Please would you tell me if I have managed to resolve it so that the tag can be removed? --MerielGJones (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you--MerielGJones (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting guidance and help
Greetings @ Buidhe

Frankly after latest AfC review of the Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala  since I am not a native English language speaker, Idk whether I can change predicament of the draft with my limited linguistic skills.

Requesting guidance and help

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi bookku, I don't think the issue with the draft is the prose rather its due to lack of encyclopedic language as it reads as an essay taking the point of view of ex-muslim activists. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I saw that you red-linked Ralph Wilde in your article above. I started a page, but am not sure if it is ready for the main space. I am wondering if you would check it out for me? Thanks for your hard work. Bruxton (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Selective conscientious objection
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Draftification of Jakob Heierli
Regarding : there was a note attributing the original article from the very first version of this article. I don't know how you concluded that it was a machine translation, but this is not a reason to draftify—we have rough translation—nor is "contains errors" (thank god, or there'd be nothing left in mainspace). I would say your messages to the creator come across as a bit bitey but then they've been contributing to the project for 16 years, so maybe WP:DTTR is more relevant. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There is consensus that machine-translations don't add anything to the encyclopedia (since anyone can view the other wikipedia page through Google Translate, for example of discussions see here and here) and in fact detract from the encyclopedia since such automatic translations are not infrequently erroneous. I have experience in spotting machine translations and believe draftification is an appropriate response (another one suggested in these discussions was speedy deletion). I don't believe in treating editors differently based on the length of time that they have been contributing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those discussions were about the content translation tool and are not relevant to the page we're talking about. Regardless of what you believe, if you're doing NPP you must follow the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY and this article clearly did not meet them. That you "have experience" does not mean you are infallible or remove the need to assume good faith. Please be more careful in future. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussions, you would see that many editors are concerned about the content translation tool precisely because of machine translations. No one but you seems to think that machine translations are good for the encyclopedia. Although the page you link on draftification is neither a policy nor a guideline, it does say that draftification is appropriate when "The page is obviously unready for mainspace". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles
Im quite impressed at the Nuremberg trials article and others you worked, I wouldnt be surprised if Nazi concentration camp will be also GA soon. 122.54.137.65 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Moral equality of combatants
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Public domain?
Hello Buidhe. I'm trying to determine whether File:Egypt, Giza.jpg can be used on Wikipedia. According to its file page on Commons, it is in the public domain because it was published before January 1, 1927, but it's not clear how this determination was made because it was uploaded from a random Wordpress site, and there is no information on where and when it was published. Is the rationale on Commons good enough, or do I need to investigate further? Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty well known photo, on display at the Musée Albert-Kahn as part of Kahn's The Archives of the Planet, and can be seen here. Kahn died in 1940, making it public domain in Egypt and in the US afaict.  nableezy  - 21:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be fine because Egypt has a 50-year copyright term and it would have been out of copyright before the URAA date. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good to know. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Neither Settler nor Native
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nuremberg trials
The article Nuremberg trials you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nuremberg trials for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nuremberg trials
The article Nuremberg trials you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nuremberg trials 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Query at GAN
Hi, could you please help us out at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations? We're unsure on what the correct procedure is in these cases. Nehme1499 09:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Toronto Standard (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Toronto Standard (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) 19:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: You have over 100,000 edits, why aren't you autopatrolled?
I have no idea. I never thought much of it myself, because I don't really mind if people patrol my edits. It seemed possible that it was a safety measure - imagine what happens if an account such as this one gets compromised, that could be quite a mess. Autopatrolled seems to indicate that I may grant this to myself, or that you may request it for me at the relevant noticeboard - I would appreciate it if you would take the latter route because doing it to myself randomly just seems a tad weird to me. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Buidhe, but to note that until December 2021, you were autopatrolled, as it was bundled in with the admin toolkit. It was only unbundled ; see WP:RFA2021/P for the broader RfC that led to that consensus. as to granting it yourself, what do you think the first thing every other admin went and did? All, of course, to save NPP the trouble of patrolling them; looking at you, admin-who-shall-remain -nameless who last wrote a three line stub in 20011 but clearly must have the autopatrolled right! *facepalm* :D   SN54129  13:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping ; also ctrl+f "and autopatrolled" here...  SN54129  13:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See, this is exactly why I don't fancy the idea of granting a right to myself :D --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, here.  SN54129  14:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Problems of Genocide
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

'Debate about genocide' article
In case you missed it: Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (not created by me). Boud (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the article title does not seem to be neutral to me, since as you say, there is debate over this. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam and WP:CLAIMS
Hello Buidhe,

You recently reverted the change I made on the page Turkish Passport (film) claiming that it does not violate MOS:CLAIM. Indeed, it does not violate it because MOS:CLAIM is different from WP:CLAIMS, which I have cited in the first place. You also claimed that the source is reliable, and again, I did not made any claims regarding the reliability. The problem is, I went into the source and Ungor does not cite any particular source for this part, and it is obvious that it is his own personal opinion. Argumentum ad verecundiam, which is advised to be avoided in WP:CLAIMS, precisely describes this situation: "[...] argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument." As a result, I will be reverting your reversal and wanted to notify you.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearnaiseSauce (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, WP:CLAIMS is an essay and I do not believe it represents consensus. Point is that Ungor is an expert on Turkey and similar opinion has been expressed by other scholars studying minorities in Turkey such as Baer, Rifat Bali etc. Therefore it seems reasonable to include. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Comprendre (journal)
What is 'not ready'? A description would help to correct the page. How many pages describing academic journals are acceptable? 50%? Let's review them.
 * Examples (there are hundreds)
 * Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen
 * Aries (journal)Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Death to Arabs at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Nice of you to comment on James Madison. Everything you said about the FA sounded like a good idea and if you might be interested in doing the GOCE edits with an eye to doing the edits and trims which you described to me on the James Madison Talk page, then I would try to support as well as possible for me. Does that sound possible for you? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In support of all your edits over night which I think are all of benefit to the article. Regarding your suggestion to split the article for Madison's part in the writing of the Constitution, then I think its fully possible to do that and maybe leave a short 2-3 paragraph summary, with the new link to the split article in the pertinent main article section. The Wilkinson material was inherited from a previous editor at the GAN and I shortened it quite a bit, I think further trims are possible. Its one of those issues of not wanting to be criticized for avoiding issues which were not flattering to Madison in the article for neutrality in coverage within the article as a whole. (I'm supporting your deletion of that section). If you would like me to do the page split for Madison as author of the Constitution, then I can schedule some time to do it by the end of this week. Your edits to the article improve it quite a bit and I thought that maybe, after I do the page split, that you might consider the possibility of doing a co-nomination for the article at FAC (possibly instead of the GOCE path which may be a little duplicative at this time). What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 50% reduction from where it is now is not necessary (that would make it under 6,000 words). It's currently 11,777, if trimmed by 1/4 to 1/3 I don't think anyone would oppose based on length. I'm happy to take a look at it after split, but it would make more sense to make Orser67 or Cmguy777 co-nom since they have been significant contributors to the article prose. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The split is now done and the article is now linked to the newly split article, for a further trim of about 10K from the article. Orser67 is listing as semi-retired now, and Cmguy777 was not available for the GAN co-nomination, though both of them are welcome to jump in during the FAC if they can find time for it. After you have a chance to look at the page split which I just put in, possibly you might have some further reflections on a possible co-nomination. I'm supporting the edits which you have made over night as improvements to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I've looked through the reference which you had submitted at FAC recently and your reference listing appears to be mistaken for "Kim, Youna (2021). The Soft Power of the Korean Wave: Parasite, BTS and Drama. Routledge." Youna Kim is not listed as the author of a book-length study as you appeared to be stating, and the "book" is really a collection of various essays on various aspects of the current Korean Culture Wave and not about BTS; Youna Kim is listed only as an editor of the collected essays. The subtitle's mention of "Parasite, BTS and Drama" uses the Korean film "Parasite" as a symbolic reference to discuss the Korean film industry in general, and the band "BTS" is used as a symbolic reference to the contemporary Korean music industry in general. The collection of essays you cited as a 'book' appears to have no applicable material for the BTS article. Were you aware that your reference to this 'book' was a non sequitur? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * before mentioning it, I checked the table of contents and noticed that several chapters are about BTS, so directly related to this article! Of course Kim is the editor but please help me understand why that makes the book irrelevant? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The short answer to your question is that the book you mention is not written about BTS but that it is written about the Korean Culture Wave. Prof Kim is a sociologist teaching in Europe and who specializes in the general sociological study of Korean cultural influence in the world. She does not present herself as a specialist in BTS studies or as a music expert in any way. She is an accomplished sociologist with no pretenses about being a film expert for the Korean film "Parasite" or the music band "BTS"; it is not her subject.
 * Your comments about 'deprecated sources' from the recent FAC appeared to be mixed from your similar comments from the James Madison Talk page where you talked about the same subject of 'deprecated sources'. In the case of James Madison, another editor had added a poorly constructed Memorial section in the article with no references at all. During GAN for James Madison, I then went to the individual articles mentioned by the previous editors and copied over the citations which were being presented at those individual pages as documenting the issues which were uncited by the previous editor in the Memorial section of James Madison. You then pointed out that the citations taken from that other Wikipedia page which I took the reference from needed to be replaced because it was deprecated, and I went ahead and changed out the defective citation. If you have an issue with the deprecated citation which I added, your issue would need to be taken up with the editors (whoever they are) at the linked pages which are currently presenting the bad citations as being valid; the issue is not that I am intentionally using bad material as much as that other editors are currently editing with bad sources at the linked pages which the James Madison Memorial section is currently linked to. You can contact those other editors on their Talk pages by looking up their names in the edit histories of the linked article in the Memorial section of the James Madison article if this issue is of concern to you.
 * I present this in detail because the original difficulty at the BTS page was the exact opposite of a problem with bad citations which seems so important to your comments. The original version of the BTS page from last October here was that it had over 600 fully formated citations and was over 410Kb is size, which required over an hour to read from top to bottom. All of the over 600 citations were fully formatted from reliable sources, however, there were just too many of them and the article was much too long. The article was brought down to about 350 citations at about 210Kb in length at the time of GAN, which seems to be much more within expected Wikipedia parameters for recommended page size and article length. That leaves at least another 300 fully formated citations as currentlly archived and ready for use. If I add in the several hundred BTS citations which currently appear in the sister articles of the main BTS article for their individual songs and multiple individual albums, then the number of available fully formatted citations probably adds several hundred more fully formated citations. The problem is not too few fully formatted citations for the BTS article, but an apparent abundance of citations which are available and currently archived in Wikipedia history archives. I hope that clarifies your question about Kim's book and the currently available reliable citations available for the BTS article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sheer number of citations is a poor indication of whether the FA criteria are met. Quality matters more. If you add a citation to an article, it's important to check that it actually supports the content it's cited for. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear Buidhe,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. I wish I sent this at the exact 10 year mark in April 22, but oh well. Also, thank you for your stupendous work on important and highly viewed articles!&#x200B;

Best regards, Wretchskull (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)