User talk:Buidhe/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Switching a TFA

Hi Buidhe, I saw on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending that you wanted to nominate International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide for TFA on June 20, 2022. I am hoping to fix up Final Fantasy Tactics this year and nominate it for TFA on June 20, 2022, the 25th anniversary of the video game's release. Would you be OK with switching the date of your TFA? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720 Sure, I'd be happy with June 24. (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Viasat

Please check and repair the hundreds (900+) of links pointing to the disambiguation page Viasat. The Banner talk 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass POV pushing /source removal by Volunteer Marek on the Institute of National Remembrance page

Just wanted to let you know.https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Institute_of_National_Remembrance&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.198.213 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't edit this area anymore, too much POV pushing. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

GAN drive question

Hey Buidhe, I was wondering, I claimed the Sehet, wir gehn hinauf gen Jerusalem, BWV 159 GAN review around a week ago; Gerda asked me to do so, though I told her that if I did so I would likely get to it quite a bit late, and she agreed. Just today I've reviewed the article and I'm wondering if this could still count for the GAN drive? Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• The GA backlog rules state that "Reviews started before 1 March do not count." I believe that "started" means opening a review, although unfortunately it could be interpreted both ways. Eddie891, what do you think? Either way the rules should be clarified to leave no doubt. (t · c) buidhe 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  My understanding is that technically the review should be opened in March for credit. However, in cases where no actual reviewing was conducted until March, we have (in the past) virtually always allowed those reviews and I would similarly be inclined to offer credit here, particularly when considering that it is clear Aza was acting in good faith and not trying to abuse the guidelines. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying! Aza24 I will grant credit in that case. (t · c) buidhe 16:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Great! Thank you both for your assistance. Aza24 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you re George LeMaistre submission

Thank you for your help in publishing my second article creation. I am still finding my way in Wikipedia editing. I appreciate your effort. BTV55 (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BTV55

Good article drive

Hi, I reviewed an article for the good article drive earlier, and you've marked the review as being too short. Having read a couple of other reviews I can see that it is obviously too short, I'm going to edit it now. If I link to the edited review in a subcomment can you change the flag on the review? I haven't reviewed any articles before so please bear with me. Kind regards, Ballpointbiro (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ballpointbiro, Sure, I would be happy to reevaluate. There is a learning curve with these things! (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added some more detail to the review and suggested some improvements. Please let me know if this is satisfactory and I'll adjust the article's talk page accordingly. Thanks for taking the time, Ballpointbiro (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Geoffrey_Kirk/GA1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballpointbiro (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the thumbs up mean I'm ok to pass the article? Sorry to pester, I just want to be sure. Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ballpointbiro You should wait for Modussiccandi to respond to your comments, and then decide whether to pass the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland

The article Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland 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 HJ Mitchell -- HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I am very pleased to award Buidhe the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown for their outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! Damien Linnane (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. Vami_IV nominated you for a Triple Crown (see here), and having gone through your contributions, I can confirm you are eligible and am happy to present you with the award. As you have between 5 and 14 eligible articles in each category, you are entitled to the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown immediately. If you had of self-nominated or been nominated for the lower tiers of the award, you could of course have been awarded those first. Accordingly, if you would also like to be retroactively awarded the 'Standard' and 'Imperial' Triple Crown, just let me know and I'll be happy to confer those as well (some people want them, some people don't seem fussed, it makes no difference to me). The record of your conferment is located here. If in the future you get 15 or more eligible articles in each category and wish to apply for the next tier of the award, copy the articles that you've already been recognised for into your new nomination, and then add the newer articles after them. Have a great day. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Napoleon Buidhe" - it has a certain ring to it. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks Vami_IV! I do not need other ranks of the award, this one is fine by me. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Was surprised to see you didn't already have. Guess you're not here to showboat, huh? All the best. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If you happen to have a Discord, it would be a joy to shoot the breeze with you in the unofficial WikiMedia Discord server. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Waverider (comics)

So when are you going to change the article's name?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry about that—now done. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Imola Circuit page move

Hi, do you remember what prompted you to rename the current Imola Circuit page from the previously used Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari title? The official name is the latter, so why the move? cherkash (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• cherkash the move request gained a clear consensus at the talk page: Talk:Imola Circuit. I have no position on the issue. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hugo Black GAR

Hello, Buidhe. You recently closed WP:Good article reassessment/Hugo Black/1 as a delist, but the article never actually got delisted. Ordinarily I'd just do it myself, but since I initiated the GAR I'd prefer it you completed the formalities. Thanks in advance! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Extraordinary Writ Sorry about that, now done. (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

False accusation against you re:copyvio

I've reverted this edit [1] and discussed this User talk:Gators bayou#Claim of copyright violation against another editor with the editor in case you wish to comment. btw excellent work on the article. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  17:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Drums

Did you mean to move Mr. Drums: Buddy Rich & His Band Live on King Street to a different title than what was proposed? — BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, I was probably just confused by the first sentence of the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think there could be a hypothetical case for that shorter title, but it wasn't what we settled on. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Beaver FAC

Hello, could you do a source review as well. LittleJerry (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• LittleJerry, sorry, I don't feel comfortable evaluating the sourcing of biology articles as it's outside my usual subject area. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Community GAR close

Hi Buidhe, I was wondering if you'd mind checking I set up article history correctly at [2], and that [3] was correct. Best, CMD (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• CMD Looks fine to me! Thanks for closing old GARs. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

José Sabino Chagas Monteiro

I posted a message pinging every participant of the RM about my concern then you suddenly moved the page. Why? Jerm (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• The seven day move time had expired. Those who did reply to your concern didn't seem to share it. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I just pinged them. That doesn't mean they're logged in or oppose my concern, and off course the RM initiator opposes it. It didn't mean the RM initiator is correct. Jerm (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Some help

It's not that we're too close or that we've had a lot of interactions, but I feel like you're one of the few admins that I consider trustworthy enough for this. For months already I have been receiving a wave of warnings and I have been involved in multiple disputes with other users. At first I thought most or half at least of them weren't my fault, but after so many fights one doesn't know what to think. Would it be possible for you to give a quick check at my latest actions and determine if I just have a bad streak or if I really am the main problem? Any advise is of course welcome. I also highlight that while I may not have had the best behavior in January and February of this year, I think this month I'm not doing much stuff badly, but well, my opinion doesn't count too much in this case. Thank you, Super Ψ Dro 17:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Super Ψ Dro I'm afraid I don't think I can help you with this because I'm not an admin. (t · c) buidhe 17:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? Now that's some stupid error from my part... I thought you were since I saw you frequenting places such as move or FAN discussions, although assuming you are one just from that is a bit ignorant... Sorry for this strange request, then. Super Ψ Dro 17:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck finding advice somewhere else! (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

At long last

Hey there, guess who finally decided to setup an archive bot? Yup! you guessed right that’s me. Thanks for persuading me buidhe. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lex CEU

Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lex CEU, 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) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg/GA2

Now that you mentioned the copyvio issues on that review, I decided to take a closer look at the Earwig (it finally worked for me) and found more copyvios. Since I already started the review, should I keep it on hold? Or is it ok to fail it due to the copyvios?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:Bait30 You can fail the review if you think it's a long way from meeting GA standard. It can only be passed if all copyvio/close paraphrasing issues are fixed. Up to you what makes most sense. Either way, the review is more than detailed enough to get credit at the drive. (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The Jungle (Seattle)

Hi Buidhe, can you give a reason for closing the requested move and deciding no move on The Jungle (Seattle)? Thanks, c36b9 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• c36b9 As the other editor pointed out, the article as it stands is not about the park, it's about the homeless encampment. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The other editor is wrong. The article is about a park which contains a homeless encampment, at the moment. -- c36b9 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:APLRS clarification request

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Greek case

Congratulations, buidhe! The article you nominated, Greek case, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ealdgyth (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Imperial Russian Army

Are the "Tsarist Army" and the Imperial Russian Army equivalent? I'm not very familiar with eastern European stuff, and went with "Tsarist Army" at the Alexander Bielaski article because that's what the source called it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hog Farm Tsarist Army redirects to the Imperial Russian Army, and this source[4] indicates they're the same thing. The issue is that "tsarist" has a negative connotation nowadays so I would try to avoid it. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:De Gruyter

Hey, thanks for your application. Access to De Gruyter Online moved to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Please have a look and enjoy the content. :) Martin Rulsch (WMDE) (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 5, 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/April 5, 2021, 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a pointless, if too long, comment

Regarding your reply here, I agree - it's not sufficient to just note that Lewis is a woman. I should have said more about this point, but even with the following elaboration it remains uninteresting, hence this being "just a comment" :).

Although the Boston marriage existed and was partly romantic (... though its historicity in my research is fairly debatable), most are unlike Cather's relationship with Lewis. Many, not all, were probably just women who, because of their disinterest in being married, found company with other socially elite women. Relationships like those by Sarah Orne Jewett (who Cather edited, and even dedicated a book to) are more to the core of her relationship with Lewis: markedly romantic, lifelong, enduring, and not particularly motivated by wealth or status, but AFAIK in my research, these are a minority. And even if they weren't, Boston marriages were not particularly common anyway -- and certainly, the kind experienced by Jewett are rarer still. But even if that were interesting, the hooks I proposed sort of flatten Cather anyway. Only saying that someone had a partner is essentializing and trivial, especially when we have much punchier stuff to work with.

My secondary interest in those hooks, though, was that Homestead's book shines a whole new light on the Cather-Lewis relationship. And it is due to be launched on April 1 -- so, timely for DYK. Acocella and other conservative writers tried to whitewash the romantic dimension, but letters like these make it increasingly hard to deny. And I could not find a better way to write them than I did there -- so your proposed hook makes me quite happy, not only because I lack the skills to translate the Homestead book into an appropriate hook, but also because it avoids flattening her and speaks to her notability (a writer, not being a likely lesbian). Urve (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Move closure

Hello, you recently closed this discussion saying that we need "recent English-language sources". I'm confused because I've provided these (for example this RFE/RL source and this Carnegie Europe source), while the opposing side has provided zero English-language RS that refers to the city as "Şirvan". And I don't believe MODERNPLACENAMES applies here as this is not a case of different names. They're the same name, but an anglicized version, even official Azerbaijani government sources use "Shirvan" when referring to city in English. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to review your closure. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• CuriousGolden, Yes, you provided some recent sources, but so did those opposing the move, specifically mentioning Financial Times style guide and Lonely Planet guidebook. Recent sources do count because the Kyiv move was closed on the grounds that many English-language sources switched from Kiev to Kyiv (although the Russian and Ukrainian names/spellings did not change). If we were looking at all of history or even just the last 20 years, Kiev would have won out. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  The opposing side provided 2 overall sources, while I provided 5 and Google Scholar/News results which show that the anglicized name is in more common use. In addition to this, Wikipedia policies such as WP:UE advocate that we anglicize names, so not anglicizing it, when there are clearly more source referring to it by its anglicized name doesn't seem quite right. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  Soo.. would you revert your closure or would you recommend me to take it to WP:MR? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I can't stop you from taking it to MR. However, I don't think you will succeed there as the premise is wrong. WP:UE does not "advocate that we anglicize names", it actually states, "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  But that's exactly what I've proved. I've given 5 recent reliable sources as well as an extensive WP:GOOGLETEST that show that "Shirvan" is the common name in English-language media. This is why I'm confused about the result of the request as the opposing side barely provided 2 sources, one of which is from 2004 while the other 5 years-old, much older than any of the sources I've provided. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd really rather if we could solve this here, rather than me having to take it to MR, so I'm still waiting for your reply. In the meantime an almost exact move here was closed successfully, so I don't think I have the "premise wrong". — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Tatmadaw

Hello, can you check as one editor who has a lot of experience Talk:Tatmadaw#Political context? Thank you.:)

WikiWeds

Glad you could join yesterday! If there's an upside to moving everything online over the past year, it's that we've seen a lot of long-time contributors who otherwise wouldn't be at the in-person events. If you're so inclined, you can add your name to the [absurdly long, now that I look at it] mass message list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pashtuns 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 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Şirvan, Azerbaijan

An editor has asked for a Move review of Şirvan, Azerbaijan. 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. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Young Sabot Maker

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Henry Ossawa Tanner - The Young Sabot Maker - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding noms

Hello, I have been enjoying participating in the March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive, but I would like to ask what nominations are classified as outstanding ones? I was thinking it was ones over 90 days old but this number is bigger than the unreviewed number by about 150 so it can't be... --K. Peake 14:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• K. Peake: "Outstanding nominations" are any article that's currently listed on the WP:GAN page, regardless of how old they are or whether they are on hold/on review etc.. For instance, currently the GAN page states: "there are currently 584 nominations listed, of which 438 are waiting to be reviewed." Opening a review on any outstanding, unreviewed nomination can get credit at the drive, although we encourage a focus on older nominations. (t · c) buidhe 17:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh thank you for explaining it to me... makes perfect sense now why that number is always higher! --K. Peake 21:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• K. Peake You're welcome! Thanks for participating in the drive. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Another question that has popped into my mind recently a while after this one was resolved is how do you decide which reviews to check for verifiability first? I ask this because I can tell the order isn't exactly chronological, as you have verified mine in a random order for instance. --K. Peake 10:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Kyle Peake, For people who are experienced we don't check every nom, but every other one or every third one. I try to be a bit random to make it less predictable which are going to be checked. (t · c) buidhe 10:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah that makes for interesting surprises, rather than knowing that my oldest/newest noms will be assessed first! At least everything will have been gone over by the end of the drive, thankfully. --K. Peake 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your edit

Hi, you edited the page Presidency of Ram Nath Kovind, and removes the Gallery of Images and Foreign State Visits of President, on issue that no independent sources are cited. I agree on the second issue, and will site independent sources like news articles on these topics, kindly tell me why have you deleted gallery of images, and will it be fine if I use images with the State Visits of Presidents each country's paragraph, rather than a gallery? Kindly suggest me other improvements if required. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, You should not have a gallery of images when the gallery does not add encyclopedic value. If you've seen one pic of Kovind shaking hands with a foreign leader, 20 more of them do not add to the reader's understanding. Instead, use just a couple pictures to illustrate next to the text. See Presidency of Jimmy Carter for good use of images. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for suggesting me an sample article, I understand, and would include only 4-5 images wherever necessary, can I include the State Visits of Presidents, but by citing independent news articles and writing a brief summary rather than the speech? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, can I include the State Visits of Presidents, but by citing independent news articles and writing a brief summary rather than the speech? Yes, that's fine. But it's also better if sources cover it to try to answer, "why did the president visit this country?" "what is he hoping to achieve with the visit?" "did he achieve it?" etc. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have edited it and done the changes, kindly review and tell if they page is now fine or not? Presidency of Ram Nath Kovind

ping to Buidhe

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh it's definitely improved. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Books discussion close

I'm not exactly a fan of snow-closing a 10-day discussion which effectively deprecates linking to an entire namespace, especially when there have multiple other discussions with opposition to the idea (indicating a lack of advertisement). Would you consider reverting and/or tossing a {{rfc}} on it? Izno (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a snow close, per WP:RfC "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached...There is no required minimum or maximum duration...". I think that the discussion was sufficiently well-attended and consensus was nearly unanimous. (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It was not advertised as an RFC. No tag, a listing at CENT that was a handful of days, and you still do not seem willing to recognize that there has been previous opposition (as I said, indicating a lack of advertisement). That's concerning. Please reopen. Izno (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Rachel Nickell page move

Hi Buidhe. I saw that you recently closed the Talk:Killing_of_Rachel_Nickell#Requested_move_16_March_2021 and moved the article from "Murder of Rachel Nickell" to "Killing of Rachel Nickell" stating that "There is a consensus that the word "murder" is not appropriate to use in the title of this article, as the individual responsible was convicted of manslaughter, not murder." Could you explain where you found "consensus" in the discussion, please? Some1 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the argument that most editors made in the discussion; evidently they found it more convincing than the argument in favor of "murder". Consider that WP:COMMONNAME is not the entirety of WP:Article titles policy, there are other aspects, in this case WP:POVTITLE and WP:BLP also apply. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Although it is an essay, please realize that discussions, especially article move discussions, aren't based on Wikipedia:Supervotes or the closer's preferences. To repeat my comment at the RM discussion: "all of the supports came in before the RfC regarding murder/killing/death/etc. article titling was mentioned." Even the editor who started the move request crossed out their initial concerns after learning about the RfC [5] and said to use the term that reliable sources use instead. I also asked the admin who closed the RfC for further clarification at User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing?, and they stated that yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies in cases such as this one (where the killer was charged with manslaughter) and explanatory supplement [such as the flowchart and WP:DEATHS] remains up to date but crucially in that RfC there was no consensus to make it a guideline." Coffeeandcrumbs provided a Google Ngrams link [6] for the WP:COMMONNAME evaluation, which shows that the COMMONNAME for the article is 'Murder of Rachel Nickell', even long after the conviction. Even WP:POVTITLE says Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids... In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. I also want to point out that none of the editors in the discussion used "WP:POVTITLE" as a rationale for their vote; which makes me think your move was based on a WP:SUPERVOTE and your personal preferences instead. I kindly ask that you please revert your move. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're the one asking me to supervote in contrast to the clear consensus of editors in the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

When did I ever ask you to "supervote"? Please provide diffs. Some1 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've argued before that all our death of, killing of, murder of articles should be at Death of X. That would avoid all these complications. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but I'm only considering the opinions that are expressed in this move discussion, which clearly favored "killing" in this case. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

These article moves should be closed based on article titling policy, not on a "vote tally" or a SUPERVOTE. As I stated before, all of the Support votes came in before the relevant article naming RfC [7] was mentioned, and after it was mentioned, the editor who initiated the RfC then crossed out their initial concerns and said to go with what reliable sources use instead [8]. Then no new votes came in after. Some1 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, are you okay with reversing your move closure and moving the article title back? Some1 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I also ask that you do not close Talk:Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Requested_move_17_March_2021 due to the issues above. Thanks. Some1 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson GAN

Hi Buidhe, thought it worth asking if the Talk:Woodrow Wilson GAN was meant to be passed. You undid the pass, but then it was apparently repassed some hours later without any further review. Best, CMD (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

About American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

I’m not a sock of User:AmericanRescuePlan2021 but I did left a note on the top of the article talk page saying that I probably (and/or unlikely) won’t be active by the time suggestions for the article are made in. I will allow someone else to edit the article and do what the reviewer suggested. I requested withdrawal which was withdrawn. I am no longer active on this Wikipedia. ARP2021 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Wikipedia mini globe handheld

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Murder of Rachel Nickell

An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder of Rachel Nickell. 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. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

March flower

Thank you for reviewing Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Poland

Please stop undoing what i added. Why do you think the source must give these specific items? Why not points like: "anti-discrimination laws in bakeries / mines / steel mills ..."? Why not even more detailed as: "anti-discrimination laws at business meetings in companies from 100 to 250 people"? So why do you say that the statement "if the constitution says any reason means all areas" is the original interpretation. For everyone "any reason" means in all of this areas, so this is not an original interpretation, just an obvious statement. Then, are you saying that I can start a bakery and say that I don't sell bread to LGBT people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega Super RiGCz (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mega Super RiGCz : The Constitution of Poland never mentions LGBT, homosexuals, or gay. Which groups are protected by anti-discrimination protections and what constitutes "discrimination" is not something that can be deduced from this document. For example, US, Austria, Taiwan and other supreme courts have ruled that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is illegal discrimination against homosexuals. But the Polish legal system does not recognize this as a form of discrimination. Therefore, you have to find a source that explicitly discusses a particular type of discrimination and whether it is recognized as discrimination in the Polish legal system. (t · c) buidhe 11:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

GAN Drive Issue

• Your comment on Talk:The Diving Pool/GA1 appears to bypass certain efforts put into this review.

Firstly, it was recognised that this was principally a Japanese novella in translation; I made a decision on this recognition that if the novella met all critera of GA then it would be accepted. With this in mind, I attended to the criteria regarding writing about fiction and examined MOS:FICTIONAL; I was consciously aware that this was a work of fiction, so exercised care in plot and summary.

In my review, I said, inter-alia, Presenting a book sans slabs of text and excerpts is challenging. Well done, here.

WP:BOOKPLOT tells me that I must review like so: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

So I have to work with reviews of a Japanese novella, tryptich, in translation. I recall that I had 13 pages of references open during this review. I ignored the student newspaper for they are not considered reliable sources; the second Japanese translation confirmed the book won the Akutagawa Prize, considered the most sought after literary prize in Japan. My comments spoke of Follows MOS; all references are reliable sources; (for a Japanese novella, well done)

I was really pleased I could read all the resources and not end up like I have with J-Pop and all the references are in Japanese. I have encountered same on NPP many times.

It appears you have bypassed issues of concern to the reviewer (me) (original in Japanese), (novella has won sought after literary prize in Japan) and the reception is limited to evaluation of translations.

It is not my place to tell the editor to put in more slabs of text, nor my context, Rudolph Otto and the Idea of the Holy and the usage of numinous and ominous, which gives rise to the idea of horror and the psychological compact of horror on the individual and the interior environment thereby created.

Your reconsideration is invited. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:Eddie891, what would you do in this case? I guess in you look at the wikitext the review is long enough, but the actual review text (excluding templating) by Whiteguru is only 555 characters, which is below the 1000-character minimum (or so I thought). And also the review does not give any suggestions for improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  At the end of the day there's a certain amount of coordinators discretion that can be used in cases like these. In the past I have offered half credit for reviews with no actionable comments or really quick quick fails. What would you think about that? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have no objection to that. (t · c) buidhe 11:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I should clarify that I don't mean to imply that the review doesn't take hard work to complete or that such reviewing isn't valuable—it certainly is—but my understanding based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2021#Basic guidelines is that the review does not meet the requirements for being recognized at the drive. (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armenian Genocide denial/archive1

Hey, I noticed you haven't replied to my comments at this discussion despite being active and responding to other commenters. I just wanted to inquire if I unknowingly posted something offensive. I'm not experienced in politically charged topics so my apologies if I did. Hope everything is going well.--NØ 10:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:MaranoFan No there's nothing wrong with your comments. I appreciate feedback on my FACs and apologize for missing your comments earlier, I'm now working on addressing them. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lipowa 7

Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lipowa 7, 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) 06:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

IP at Armenian Genocide

I'd start with less Peacock and let you do our work. More than 4000 bytes for an argument?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

resubmit article to review

Hi, I've added references as requested to the article Draft:List of Egyptian television series, please double check it now, thaaaaanks. Imad_J (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your close for the RfC on Julia Margaret Cameron

Hi, there. Thank you for taking the time to close the RfC about the infobox image for the Julia Margaret Cameron article.

I have a few concerns about your summary of the discussion.

One is that you did not address how canvassing affected your determination of consensus. The strong consensus to use the restoration came only after this alleged canvassing, which overturned an emerging consensus to use the original.

Another is regarding your statement that “no one has made a case that Adam Cuerden's restoration” is introducing unpublished ideas. The substantive arguments for the unretouched version are arguing just this. In this case, the unpublished idea being introduced (or at least strongly implied) is that the restored version is more like the finished work at the time of completion.

Finally, you wrote that there are no other policies or guidelines relevant to the discussion. I argued that reliable sources should be used for the restorations of artworks. In this guideline, the section on user-generated content seems particularly relevant. Was this argument considered?

If you addressed these concerns, preferably in the closing statement for the RfC, I would be grateful. Thanks again for your contribution here. Qono (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This map is not considered to be original research. The map is significantly different from its sources, otherwise it would be a copyright violation. Why would this map, drawn by a Wikimedian, not be original research but the restored photo is? That is never explained by those who oppose the restored version.

Second, there is nothing in canvassing policy that explains how to close discussions. In this case, I see most of the editors adding their own viewpoint so I don't believe they're acting as meatpuppets. Furthermore, posts like this are not really canvassing in my opinion, since Adam did not ask other editors to participate in the discussion or even say that it was open.[9] (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re right that canvassing policy doesn’t directly address closures, but it does clearly label it as inappropriate and disruptive to consensus-building. Advice on closing discussions (though an essay, not a guideline) says that canvassed editors “will normally get little to no weight” and that it may result in a determination that “Consensus cannot be evaluated.” Maybe good to know, but moot if you don’t think the flood of posts was the result of canvassing.

As for original research, I don’t want to relitigate the case here, but I think comparing an original illustrated map to a modified work of art is drawing a false equivalence. I can’t think of two images that are less alike. I would say again that the difference is explained in my argument where I compare this modification to a "correction" of a poem using non-standard grammar.

I also might say that I’m not questioning the use of all modified or original images on Wikipedia, but more narrowly questioning the modification of original works of art in articles about the art and the artists. In the end, I think the arguments based on determining the subject and purpose of the image were compelling. If the purpose of the image is to depict the person and not the artwork, the potential clarity offered by a retouched version has value. If the purpose is to depict the artwork, perhaps not so much.

Thanks again for the close and for this quick reply. Qono (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

On unclosed reviews

Hi Buidhe, and many thanks for being so diligent in checking reviews and handling queries. As the drive will be ending shortly, it may be worth keeping in mind that credit can still be offered if a review is open but substantial work has already been done. For instance, even if Talk:Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/GA1 is not closed by tomorrow, I would be inclined to offer credit because it's clear the brunt of the review has been conducted. It comes down to your discretion, but I tend to look to offer credit rather than deny it. Again, thank you so much. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, Right, I noticed this in the instructions, it states: "Article reviews started before 31 March but completed after 31 March can be included in the running total – however should be completed as quickly as possible to avoid being too late." I guess what you're saying is I should evaluate based on the progress that's made of 31 March rather then wait for the review to be closed? (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Just as comments cannot be left before 1 March, comments after 31 March shouldn't count, within reason. Bst, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:April 2020 in Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:April 2020 in Spain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

R from molecular formula

This closure might be a violation of WP:BADNAC. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I close move requests all the time for template or admin/move protected pages, no one objected so far and I just list on RM/TR for someone with the appropriate permission to carry out the technical move. (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Buidhe Ah, thanks, did not see the technical request. Makes sense, I guess, especially since the NOTBUREAUCRACY argument probably works here here (unlike for deletions, see User:Tavix/non-admin closes). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I see your name a lot for anything related to page moves. Whether it's closing page move discussions or answering technical requests. Thanks for helping out with the backlogs there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I just wanted to say I immensely appreciate your work on Armenian Genocide denial and Armenian Genocide. Those are the articles Wikipedia should get right! FemkeMilene (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERM request for TE

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please revert your non-admin close of this controversial RM discussion and relist it instead

At Talk:Virtual_reality_headset#Requested_move_24_March_2021 your closing statement clearly misses the point and sounds more like a supervote where you say "Wikipedia should reflect general usage on this point" (though I recognized you may have meant to attribute that to the opposers, not yourself). Your suggestion "A general RfC on the hyphenation of virtual reality, as suggested by Masem, may help to establish overall consensus" seems way wrong, as the issue here has nothing to do with virtual reality; it's about Wikipedia style. Please revert and relist, and let an admin with more experience in controversial RMs close it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia should reflect general usage on this point" is clearly marked as an argument by opposers. WP:Commonname does not say whether it includes punctuation, so I do not consider that an inadmissible argument, although the MOS argument is also reasonable there is clearly sharply divided opinion on this point, hence a no-consensus close is appropriate. Last, I wager that by this point I actually have more experience in closing controversial RMs than many admins! (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, this close is faulty because: a) "opposers note that most usage (in both generalized and specialized sources) does not use the hyphen" is the WP:CSF fallacy, and right from the start I showed other high-quality and independent sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica using the hyphen; i.e., you and they have ignored source relevancy. And b) "Wikipedia should reflect general usage on this point" is supervoting; it's an opinion which is not supported by WP:P&G, and this has also already been explained in great detail in the course of the discussion (WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with style matters, and WP does not follow a style variance, like dropping of hyphenation, unless that variance is essentially universal for that topic in RS, which is clearly not the case if Encyclopaedic Britannica and other sources are found, within seconds of looking, not following that variance). I.e., you treated this as a numeric vote, and sided with the numerical majority who also agree with your own viewpoint. That's a supervote and a faulty close, both for WP:NOTAVOTE reasons and for failure to discern which arguments have a basis in fact and policy and which are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CSF/WP:SSF fallacies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

Hi Buidhe. I have removed again the image you have inserted into the lead space of Eurovision Song Contest. The article has just gone through a lengthy GA, when images and placement of them was discussed. Putting a poor quality and unclear image into the lead, where it floats inappropriately and the wrong size under the infobox is not helpful, which is why it was removed previously. There is already a logo in the infobox which provides an identifying image for those who hover over a link. The poor quality, small image of an audience, without any sense of where that audience is or what they are watching does not help any reader, nor does it identity Eurovision. If you feel that the article could benefit from an additional image in the lead, it should be placed in the infobox, and chosen with care. If you feel strongly about this matter, please raise the issue on the article talkpage, and seek some consensus for what would be the most appropriate lead image for the article. SilkTork (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

SilkTork, The logo image does not show up in the preview, as you would have noticed if you tried it! (Nor does it really help identify what Eurovision is). Under such circumstances, putting an image below the infobox is reasonable solution for getting an identifying image into the preview without cluttering the infobox too much. Furthermore, I do not agree that it is "poor quality" or "unclear", but if you think there is a better image to use, please feel free to swap with another image of your choice. I do not see anywhere in the GA review where appropriate lead image was discussed so I don't think that's a good argument. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Portugal and the Holocaust

Hi Buidhe, hope you are well. Your thoughts on the new article for Portugal and the Holocaust would be very welcome! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Brigade Piron Looks good to me. Perhaps you could get a DYK out of it. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)