User talk:Buidhe/Archive 24

Promotion of The Holocaust in Greece
Congratulations, and thank you today for the article about the Armenian genocide! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2022 (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 Stanford Shaw page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your message about copyright issues
Dear buidhe, on May 2, 2022, you posted a message on my talk page about copyright issues in my article History education in the Netherlands. Normally I write articles for the Dutch Wikipedia, so I'm not quite familiar with the rules of the English one yet. I read the information on Copying within Wikipedia, but is not yet entirely clear to me what actions I should take now. Could you tell me what I need to do specifically to improve the article? I look forward to your response! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Holocaust uniqueness debate
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Paradigm Lost
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zionism as settler colonialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Death to Arabs
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GAR
Hi,

I just wanted you to know that I started a GAR for UBS before realizing you did the same months ago! (Your review is still pending however)... feel free to cut and my paste my comments into your section as needed. Kind regards. Swiss romulus (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 2022 British barristers' industrial action
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey
Can you please tell me what you think about this? Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation
Hey Buidhe! As you can see, I have completely rewritten CRE having taken every criticism and every suggestion of change and incorporated them all into the new article. The three guys that quick-failed it without giving me a chance to fix anything, called it a sermon, and asked for a more conventional view based on old scholarship, are apparently unwilling to comment now that the changes they asked for have been made. I think this is an important article that WP needs, and I want it to be recognized. I want it to be well done, and I don't think I can make that determination by myself. Will you help me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Thanks for all your work on this topic. I'm not sure whether this article is intended as a substitute for Christianization of the Roman Empire or is a sub-article of that. The focus on diffusion seems appropriate, although I think the article might benefit from a clearer distinction between cause and effect. Another thing I like about the article is covering the aftermath/legacy to a greater extent than previous versions I've seen. This is just a nitpick but I do think the reference to trickle-down economics in "very little of which ever trickled down to them" seems anachronistic; I would rewrite as the rural peasants produced much of the empire's wealth but enjoyed much less. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is anachronistic. I noticed that when someone else came along and bracketed it, and the link went to "Reagonomics". I knew I'd have to change it. Now that someone else has noticed it too, I will do so immediately. I did extend the time period - you were right about it needing it. I just didn't want to because the other one was already too long, and I knew it. So, yeah, this is a replacement. I thought perhaps I could just put a redirect to this one - once I actually write a lead and publish it. I don't understand what you mean by 'a clearer distinction between cause and effect'. Could you elaborate? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * An example of what I mean by cause and effect is the "Social environment of the new idea" section, which deals a lot with how different Christian teachings may have attracted converts, but the "sexual morality" section discusses the effect of Christian teachings on societal standards. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The effect was conversion. I thought – hoped – that was implied. Everything discussed here is about conversion - that's all sociology explains: how Rome was converted. The impact of it is probably a whole other article - and may be impossible to trace in non-tangible terms. Conversion is a tangible act and numbers of converts and time frames can be traced - to some degree - and that is probably as much effect as we can nail down.
 * I have included some effects, since you recommended up front that I be sure and tie each of these characteristics to claims they actually affected conversion rates, but that has been the sole focus: the single effect of conversion. and,  and  I am currently looking for more on the economic argument, but there is not much more that can actually be said on slavery since no one knows how many slaves there actually were. I'm sorry. The evidence is simply limited. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be argumentative. You always make intelligent suggestions, and I may very well not be understanding you completely. I was able to include the impact of sexual morality because it was that way in the sources. I was able to include an effect in gladiators for the same reason. I discussed the lack of effect of the Code. But if I didn't include an effect other than conversion, it means that's all I could find. If someone didn't study it and determine that A caused effect B, then all I could say was what is said.
 * I am unsure how, but I can try rewriting what's there to make it clearer that the things mentioned probably influenced conversion, but that's all I can legitimately say. There are some individual records of people saying why they converted - which is cause and effect - but I have also tried to avoid 'why's' in an effort to focus on how alone. Please don't be annoyed with me. This is a very long complex and difficult subject that requires limitation or it becomes completely unmanageable. I'm sorry. I know it seems like I'm not cooperating - but I am, honestly! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I recognize this is a difficult subject to tackle. You can always try again at GAN—we're running a drive in June. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to, but I want all the input I can get before then. I would like those who oppose this to input as that would have incredible value - as it already has, but I don't suppose I can make them! Anything you can add would be of value, I have no doubt. I suppose I should go write a lead of some sort! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it's out there now! Unassessed as of yet. We'll see what happens. Thank you for all your input and help - always. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
From your comments for BTS during peer review, I've made a new edit for the sources you asked to be looked at and placed it in my Sandbox. Could you comment if this accomplishes what you had wanted to see and if it would work for the current Impact section in the BTS article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , that looks like an improvement, but you still cite non-RS (i.e. Forbes contributors) and a high reliance on less high-quality, online sources that should be replaced by scholarly/retrospective accounts. The list of artists influenced by BTS does not seem to be all that helpful to me for understanding their impact. (The Beatles article is too long, but their legacy section looks decent)
 * BTW are you still working on the James Madison article? If you don't actually plan to get it to FAC, it should be removed from GOCE/REQ—their resources are stretched quite thin right now. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That second paragraph was optional with the Forbes citation and I've taken it out. Is the paragraph which is currently in my Sandbox what you prefer to see for including in the Impact section of the BTS article at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would go ahead and do it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Assassination of Gertrude of Merania
Hello! I intend to expand the article in the coming weeks, using modern academic works and (near-)contemporary chronicles. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Government of Fazlollah Zahedi
I've seen that you moved this article from a user's draft page. While doing this do you consider whether or not the page is sourced? Because this page does not cite any reference. --Egeymi (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I patrol the unsourced queue and often draftify articles that are 100% unsourced. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect that was never discussed
What the heck?!? Who did a redirect and blanked Diffusion of innovation?? That was never discussed. I want that back! It should be a subpage and it was never discussed that it wouldn't be. How do I restore that? If people agree it should not be a subpage, it can be removed later, but this action was precipitate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have put in a request for undeletion. The editors involved in the previous discussion about renaming diffusion did agree it could be a subpage, and since there was never a discussion about deleting it, it should be restored. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was only agreement that it can't be the main page, there was never agreement - or even discussion - that it shouldn't exist at all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So it would be better to simply revert the redirect? I can go do that right now. Then if you want to discuss this action, you can do so there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Would I be able to ask you for help, or should I look for someone else? I don't want to be a bother. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:637F:A801:D930:AE91:38AA:455E (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Help with what? That's an awfully vague query. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass message sender granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:
 * Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
 * For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
 * The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.

For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! --Blablubbs (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

victim versus survivor
Hey Buidhe thanks for looking over my edits. I don't think that my edit summary was misleading because MOS:MED does include guidance about avoiding the use of the word victims. And most of my edit was focused on the use of suffer and other terminology, and those are worth keeping. Regardless, I tend to agree with you about using the word victim in this article. I made some few changes from victim to survivor to help make it clear that the victim hadn't died as that often happens.

Smasongarrison (talk) Smasongarrison (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for attempting to improve articles. I don't believe that MOS:MED is applicable, as torture is not a medical condition like cancer, but a human rights violation. Thus, I would avoid writing "cancer victims" but think "torture victims" is ok. I would have to recheck what it says in Kelly et al., but I believe he is referring both to those who have died and survive (and their families/communities) not being in a position to self-advocate. The second use of survivor is OK and I shouldn't have reverted it. I also don't see why "suffer" should be avoided in this article because torture is specifically about the deliberate infliction of suffering. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Let me clarify. I wasn't trying to remove all the uses of the word suffer because you're 100 correct that suffer is a goal of torture. I meant that this case "An average of 40 percent have long-term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)," was originally written as suffer long-term post-traumatic disorder which I think does fall under mos:med. i'll make the changes you suggested if you haven't already. it sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. Thanks! Smasongarrison (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not fixed on a certain word choice in the sentence "An average of 40 percent.." but "have" seems too impersonal to me. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is impersonal, but that's the goal with describing chronic conditions or symptoms, rather than placing a value judgment on their experiences. This wiki essay might give you some context about the issue MOS:DISABILITIES. Smasongarrison (talk) Smasongarrison (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * hmm, that may be right. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Dayak people has been accepted
 List of Dayak people, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=List_of_Dayak_people help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.   Ravenswing     02:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Please See Also
List of temples in Goa TheManishPanwar (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section is: Administrators'_noticeboard — xaosflux  Talk 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Torture
Congrats, Buidhe! This time I wonder: has Hermione lent you her time-turner? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sadly not, the secret to my high activity is having dropped out of college and having too much time on my hands. The good news is that if all goes well I'm starting an apprenticeship program soon and will have less time for Wikipedia editing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope it all goes well! Though extra time might explain the volume of your output, it doesn't explain the preternaturally high quality. I continue to suspect intervention by aliens or spirits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also wanted to stop by. Congratulations on another important article! And a sincere thank you for putting up with my quibbling; sometimes I feel guilty of demanding my own version of an article on a topic which I know nothing about. Also hope all goes well with your apprenticeship; that's really exciting. Ovinus (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations: another star for your ever-growing constellation; another jewel for your crown, and an important one. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 50, March – April 2022 
 * New library partner - SPIE
 * 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

question re possible roles
Hi there. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. we could use some experienced editors there, who have some knowledge of editing and of history-related topics, to serve as coordinators there. would you be at all interested? please feel free to let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * nope i'm busy (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, no problem. I appreciate your reply. I hope you will feel free to drop by occasionally, regardless. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

GAR drive question
Hi there, just a quick question. Would a review that was "claimed" before 1 June but not reviewed at all until June began still be eligible for the backlog drive? My example in this case is Talk:Haley Cavinder/GA1; I opened the review with a simple "I'll review this in a bit" note on 26 May but did not leave comments or review the article until today. Thanks! PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, it's eligible (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Amiga Mía
Hello!

You claim on the GA backlog that I didn't check the sources on Amiga Mía, but I did! All those sources are reliable, I even asked the nominator to provide a source for a claim that he didn't have which he did and I read the said source. What's up with that? I can't check all because some are behind a paywall but I did check the vast majority. There is no OR. No source is dead since they are all archived. I even told him to remove some questionable ones, please provide me an explanation. I have done over 160 reviews and something isn't adding up.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Instructions have changed on this drive so we are now requiring source checks to accept an article on the drive. Unless I missed something, you didn't mention any source checks on the review page, so I had no way of knowing you had done them. I will pass the review now that you let me know. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will mention from now on that I checked the sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of people who refused a British honour
Hello, Buidhe,

You left a comment on this talk page but there is no accompanying article by this title so the orphaned talk page was deleted, CSD G8. Did you intend to leave it somewhere else? Then I can restore and move the comment. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Already done at Talk:List of people who have declined a British honour! Sorry, did not realize I accidentally created this other page. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Vorpahavak
I did a complete overhual of the stub article and you reverted my edit. You Claimed it was because some of my information "Failed verification in the cited source". I have two questions 1) WHat facts failed verification 2) Why did you remove the entire article not just the acts that failed verificarion Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * you cited the 1914 encyclopedia source for most of the information, including "Additionally around 1000 Armenian boys were sent to Germany to work on farms and in mines." This is not found in the cited source. Furthermore, your edit is characterized by POV language such as "rescued" that isn't used in the most reliable sources (which you removed from the article...), as it isn't representative of the experiences of all affected individuals. Other content added had no source at all and inappropriate categorization was added. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In regards to your first claim the source says "The other large-scale and long-distance Ottoman child-displacement caused by the war was the sending of about a thousand orphan boys in 1917 and 1918 to to be apprenticed in crafts, mines and farms." heres the source https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/children_and_youth_ottoman_empire_ottoman_empiremiddle_east. In regards to my alleged POV edit Saying that the Armenian children were rescued: Yes they were indeed rescued the article says they were "treated as nobodys children" and that CHILDREN were "a commodity to be possessed, kidnapped or reshaped. You also say "other content" is bad what is this Other content?" finally in regards to the encyclopedia i used its a very respected encyclopedia just look at its partners https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/project/partners/ Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maksudyan never says that these 1,000 Ottoman boys were all Armenian, and in reality they weren't. Also, if you read the sources, you would realize why "rescued" is not a NPOV word to use for these very complex experiences. It reflects the perspective of those doing the "rescuing" but not necessarily those on the receiving end. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok i understand they may not have been all Armenian but that circles back to my second original question
 * Why did you remove the entire article not just the facts that failed verificarion?
 * In regards to the question of if they were being rescued a source you used https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/115/5/1315/41289?login=false uses the term rescued Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because one source might use the term, does not mean it's appropriate as a description for all individuals concerned, as acknowledged by the source you link. The dictionary definition of "rescue" is "save (someone) from a dangerous or distressing situation", which is certainly appropriate for some but not all found their condition "distressing". As Watenpaugh points out, for those who did it was more common to escape themselves. Overall, I think that your edits lacked nuance. You're less likely to go wrong if you try to work with the scholarly sources available and try to summarize neutrally what they say. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

GAN reviews
Hi buidhe! I saw you marked my review of Sound and language in Middle-earth as a bad one because sources were not checked. I believe it's a mistake. First, I wrote that sources are fine and are mostly by known Tolkien scholars - though I didn't write about it at length, it meant that I opened at least half of them and checked that everything is ok, no copyvio, and all quotes are attributed. Second, you can see that among my comments there is some source discussion, so I did check them. If you mean that every source should be checked and there should be a comment for each, I'll try to do it the next review. Best, Artem.G (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi it's not clear exactly what you mean by "All sources are fine". It's not necessary to check every single source, but it's helpful if you're doing spotchecks to write exactly what you've done. For example, one of the reviews I passed said "Spotcheck: 3 7 12 17 21 all fine". Otherwise, the person reading your review won't understand that you've done spotchecks. I've passed it based on this discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will write more detailed source review in future. Artem.G (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Buidhe, I don't know if it's in order for a GAN nominee to join in here (if not, my bad), but Artem.G has reviewed Middle-earth articles before, suggested useful additional sources, and is visibly familiar with the critical writings of major scholars like Tom Shippey 2005, cited in the article. Further, it is certain that Artem.G checked some of the sources (which I believe meets the requirement) because they commented in detail on Ross Smith 2006 and Joanna Podhorodecka 2007 that I had used and cited, suggesting helpful additions to the article from those same sources. I do hope the helpful, informed, and constructive review can be counted towards Artem.G's score, and no, I wasn't prompted in any way for this. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, the review has been counted because Artem.G says he's done spotchecks. It was not counted before because of the addition of a spotcheck requirement to the drive this time around. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer invite
Hello Buidhe,

Thanks for the invitation. I am always happy to help Wikipedia when asked, but this review process looks pretty challenging! I will read the tutorials and watch the videos and sign up soon. I learn best through practice, so I can give reviewing a try for awhile and if I am comfortable with the process, I will join the New Page Reviews team. MauraWen (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bad ping, probably
Hi Buidhe, I ping you over at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations but I don't think it went through. Can you take a look at the concern I raised there, thank you :) Lulusword   (talk)  03:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Paramount Hotel/GA1 at the backlog drive
Hi, I'm not quite sure why you are unsure whether I have checked the sources, as I explicitly mention three sources I have read and compared to the article content and two others where I have seen only previews. I do not mention all sources I look at, nor should I need to. The instructions, by the way, do not mention spot checks, and the criteria only have a footnote about checking sources. —Kusma (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The GAN instructions are neither a policy or guideline, so I believe they are superseded by the guideline Reviewing good articles which does require source verification. Furthermore, the drive instructions state that reviews will only be given credit if they include spot checks. I will pass the review based on this conversation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To explain my confusion, I looked for the drive instructions, so I clicked on "instructions" at the top of the drive page. The link goes to Good article nominations/Instructions. It is linked much more prominently than Reviewing good articles, and I have until now assumed that the instructions and criteria were what counts, not the more obscure page that happens to be tagged as a guideline. I will start a thread at WT:GAN to clarify this. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Anti-antisemitism
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Early concentration camps
Hi buidhe, me again, but with a totally different issue. This time I have a factual question. I just noticed File:Establishment of Nazi concentration camps timeline.png and it seems to have a pre-1933 camp. That kind of contradicts my knowledge about early camps and what I wrote at Nohra concentration camp. Do you know what camp is meant there and whether the timeline is correct or not? If this is correct, a few articles will need to be updated, but I'd like to see the sources for that camp. —Kusma (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what is meant by the pre-1933 camp. I think it must be a graphing error since I've never seen it anywhere else, nor does the text elaborate on what it thinks was the first camp; on a different page (26) it says the first camps were established in 1933. Aside from this one issue, the graph seems accurate to me and was taken from a reliable source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm relieved to hear you also think it is an error. —Kusma (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Innsbruck
Buidhe, I came across Template:Did you know nominations/History of the Jews in Innsbruck, and thought you might be interested in reviewing. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IR?
Hi Buidhe, hope you are well. You have been kind enough to image review a number of my previous FACs, and I was wondering if you maybe had five minutes to take a look at my current one? Not to worry if you don't right now. All the best -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing
Hallo Buidhe, thank you for your message on my talk page. I'm thinking about this and will probably get round to applying eventually. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Drive MMS
Hi Buidhe, are you planning on sending the MMS for the July new page reviewing drive? It seems worth doing now as it gives them ample time to sign up. Thanks, &#124; Zippybonzo &#124;  Talk &#124;  18:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * seems too early but thanks for being on top of things! I usually send out a notice the last weekend of the month, which would be around the 25th. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If I’m going to be honest, in comparison to the November drive, I think that despite having more reviewers, there are less people signed up, you could send out an MMS to those that took part in the last drive to see if they want to participate again. Obviously I cannot send one myself, so if we would do that, I would just leave it for you, because I don’t want to deal with the hassle of requesting an mailing. &#124; Zippybonzo &#124;  Talk &#124;  19:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When I send out the message, it will be to the entire NPR message list, so we can recruit people who weren't on the last drive. Anyone participating in the last drive and still eligible for this one (didn't lose permissions) should be on that list. Benefit of sending later is it's less likely people will forget about the drive when it actually starts. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Buidhe,

This is to let you know that File:Bombing of Concordia Vega oil refinery in Ploești by USAAF B-24s, 31 May 1944 — restored.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 5, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-11-05. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 09:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bishop Karol Kmetcko
Hello, I would like to know why you removed the section on Bishop Kmetcko regarding his anti Semitism because "dubiously sourced" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karol_Kme%C5%A5ko&oldid=941365481) Rabbi Weissmandel personal account of his meeting and vain pleading with the bishop is detailed in the book "Min Hametzar" translated in English under the title "Out of the Depths". While I am aware of some criticism on the book by holocaust scholar Yehuda Bauer, his stance is itself controversial and in any event would not apply to an actual personally recounted meeting of Rabbi Weissmandel with the bishop. The book also quotes Rabbi Weissmandel saying that his father in law (the then Rabbi of Nitra) attempted to dissuade Weissmandel from going to the bishop, apparently realizing the futility of it as he told his son in law "You still have much to learn (about people)".

I think it is of important historical value to mention the bishop's extreme anti-Semitic beliefs as outlined in Min Hametzar which contradict the bishop's own description of his efforts on behalf of the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.94 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * IP, It wouldn't surprise me if Kmetcko were antisemitic. The question is, has it been covered in independent secondary sources? If the anecdote is considered relevent it will be covered somewhere other than a memoir (a primary source). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do some research 192.114.177.190 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cartifact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artifact.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 28, 2022. 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/July 28, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

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

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi I was hoping to run this on 27 January 2023 for International Holocaust Memorial Day as that's when this article has the highest reader interest. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, leave it with me, I'll sort it tomorrow Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  18:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations
Hello! Your submission of 2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Right to resist
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

BTS
Could I prevail on you to take another look at this FAC? I think you'll find we've addressed your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Athanasius Safar
Hello! Your submission of Athanasius Safar 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Resource Request
I want to write an article about "Famine of East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971". I need some historical newspaper articles. You have access to ProQuest. Can you help me about that? Mehedi Abedin 22:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ProQuest can be accessed at WP:TWL. Do you have access to that? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I have access to that. But how to access through the library? Mehedi Abedin 13:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * go here and scroll down for ProQuest (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Authoritarian enclave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Authoritarian enclave 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/Authoritarian enclave 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 until the discussion has finished. BilCat (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

international conference on the holocaust and genocide
hello, buidhe! i had a question regarding your tfa/r nomination for this article. was it your intention to run the blurb without an image? if so, i believe the minimum character limit for blurbs without images is 1000, as mentioned, and was hoping that you would have a good idea regarding how to appropriately lengthen the blurb. dying (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * your edit to the blurb looks good. thanks, buidhe!  dying (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for the article, "about a 1982 conference in Israel, the first major conference in the field of genocide studies, and attempts to cancel it by the Turkish government. Their objection? Scholars of the Armenian genocide were invited, a crime that is strenuously denied by Turkey to this day. Turkish diplomats blackmailed Israel by threatening the lives of Jewish refugees, but the organizers persevered and managed to hold it anyway."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit of Nuremberg trials

 * Placing this somewhat belatedly.

Talk page layout at Nuremberg trials
The current section with no title and no signature at Talk:Nuremberg trials is not compliant with the TALK guideline. When I first landed there, I found a cryptic, unsectioned, unsigned, unidentified list of citations, and tracked it to a few edits you had done in March, and perhaps before. I added a section header and unsig template to make it more compliant with the guidelines, in particular WP:Talk page layout, which calls for section headers and signatures and Reflists. I was surprised that you reverted back to its unsigned, untitled state. There are many other ways to keep a list of references around; my top choice would probably be moving them to a Further reading section in the article itself where others are more likely to notice them, or pinning the section (which would nevertheless require header and signature), or moving it to a Talk subpage and linking it from a FAQ template in the Talk page header, or including the whole thing as a FAQ, or including it as a references section in the TP header itself inside a collapsed banner holder. Any of those would be compliant, but the current approach isn't and makes the page look broken. Please choose one of the methods (there may be others I don't know about) to bring the page back into compliance. See also WP:TALK. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * if such a section is inappropriate, what is Sources-talk for? Extensive further reading sections should not be used on articles in good shape like this one is. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't used Sources-talk myself, but I know of it because it's similar to Reflist-talk which I do use. They are similar in that neither is a standalone template, but is designed to be used at the end of a discussion that contains ref tags with embedded citations. Reflist-talk generates the list as boxed material, and Sources-talk inside a collapsed bar, as in cot. See for example, the Sources-talk references at the end of the discussions Talk:Yahoo, Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque (jump to: Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque), or Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China.
 * Btw, I don't agree with avoiding Further reading on articles in good shape; the articles Baháʼí Faith, Bald eagle, Richard Feynman, and Ursula K. Le Guin all have them, and they are featured articles, although that is neither here nor there wrt to the Talk page in question. Mathglot (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Featured articles should generally only have further reading if it's an important source on the topic that does not meet reliable sources guidelines and therefore isn't cited in the article. A long further reading list is a reason to delist at FAR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is refideas a potential improvement here? —Kusma (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's similar to the refs-in-banner-holder idea, only I couldn't remember its name. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)