Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
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)
I have only been a registered editor for a short period of time, but I've been an avid reader for a looog time. It's only now, after becoming involved, that I’ve realized how much of the best content on this website exists thanks to you, especially in difficult areas. So please accept this modest cup of coffee as an expression of my gratitude. JBchrch (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) |
Here comes some baklava from its homeland. This is for your efforts in topics that are hard to deal with. Visnelma (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC) |
Lol, they are so triggered that you are on main-stream news.--Visnelma (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
——Serial 11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
On 5 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Do Not Disturb (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2021 book Do Not Disturb was credited with exposing "a remarkable catalog of lies the [Rwandan government] sold to western apologists"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Do Not Disturb (book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Do Not Disturb (book)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 12:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
...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)
On 6 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied Greece, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the highest death rates in the Holocaust was in Bulgarian-occupied Greece, where 97 percent of Jews were killed in less than a month? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied Greece. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied Greece), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Buidhe
You recently moved this article from Norway plus to Norway-plus, 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 — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma .Moxy- 00:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your tireless work in preserving and improving articles, thank you! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC) |
Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
I did it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've closed the RM but it still needs moving over the redirect. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
On 14 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1914 Greek deportations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1914 Greek deportations have been described as "a trial run for the Armenian Genocide"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1914 Greek deportations. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1914 Greek deportations), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 27, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the close at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021. I think this is the first time in this entire year I have seen a closer explicitly and properly 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)
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)
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)
You recently closed the RfC at Talk:Elon Musk#Should Musk be called an engineer? 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)
consensus is clearand 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)
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. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
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 · c) buidhe 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. 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)
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)
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. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is non-admin closes by Buidhe. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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. @Kwamikagami: @Nardog: --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
... is a Move Review in progress elsewhere ...@TaivoLinguist: I agree. The said Move Review is at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_May#Pennsylvania_Dutch_language and is to keep the Dutch so this is safe to close. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grammar Nazi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Grammar Nazi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
On 24 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article May 1915 Triple Entente declaration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first use of the phrase "crimes against humanity" in diplomacy was in a May 1915 Entente declaration condemning the Armenian Genocide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/May 1915 Triple Entente declaration. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, May 1915 Triple Entente declaration), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
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)
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)
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)
I hope you'll be monitoring dukes for new links following your recent WP:ROBIN move and retarget. Plural redirects invariably collect bad links; Eagles for one is notorious, you'd be surprised how many play music or sports. Narky Blert (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The close summary at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Remove_the_option_to_save_in_the_book_namespace_from_the_book_creator 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)
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)
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)
On 26 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hrant Dink Foundation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Turkish court banned a Hrant Dink Foundation conference about the social, cultural and economic history of Kayseri? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hrant Dink Foundation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hrant Dink Foundation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Upload (company) 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.