User talk:Buidhe

I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.

Peer review request

Hi, Buidhe! I've got a two-month-old request for a peer review I wonder if you wouldn't mind looking at if you have the time and energy: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Yankee/archive1. The article is about a groundbreaking literary magazine edited by John Neal (writer), whose FAC you reviewed, so perhaps you'd find it interesting. You've reviewed a couple different articles I've written, so I really appreciate your help so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Buidhe,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

See Talk:Japan_and_the_Holocaust#Good_pictures?. Also, feel free to c/e and review this new tiny article I wrote. Surprised this didn't have a dedicated one yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews

Hi Buidhe, I hope you're well. I realise you may be very busy but I was hoping I could ask a favour of you, or two actually, over at FAC. Both 1987 Football League Third Division play-off Final and 2015 FA Cup Final could use image reviews, and I'd really appreciate it if you could do them? If not, no problem of course. Have a great weekend. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks very much for those, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Buidhe. It's not been long since I asked for a favour, so I can handle rejection...! If not, would you be kind enough to take a look at two FACs, similar in nature to those before, this time it's UEFA Euro 2012 Final and UEFA Euro 2016 Final? I think it should be relatively straightforward, but of course if you're busy on other things, no problem at all. Have a good weekend! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, image reviews are pretty quick. (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Holocaust in Byelorussia

Hi Buidhe, your view would be appreciated in the RM discussion. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Victim nationalism

Hello, Buidhe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Victim nationalism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Patroller's Barnstar
		Thanks for your all effort in patrolling :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 19:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 19:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Malley RM

Hello, this is a bit late, but would you mind re-opening the close at Talk:Sean O'Malley, based on my reading of the consensus, the support rationales except for the one provided by Yaksar were pretty light, and didn't substantially address the fact that one of the most significant Catholic cardinals of the last century in terms of influence is quite obviously the primary topic in terms of long-term significance. I'd like to add an oppose rationale to the RM, and I think it would be fairly strong. Given that the discussion was pretty lightweight in terms of analyzing the two people, I think restoring the status quo and relisting probably makes more sense than a new RM. Thanks, hope all is well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni I'd like to elaborate a bit on my close rationale since I didn't at the time. I felt that the supporting arguments expressed during the discussion (especially Yaksar's comment) were stronger than the opposing ones, and support had significantly more numerical support, so I didn't feel it would be correct to close as no-consensus. Obviously I did not consider any points that weren't raised in the discussion. However, it was a fairly well attended move and would require moving the pages back to reopen, so I feel that opening a new discussion would be more appropriate if you disagree with the closure. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily take issue with the closure, but I think it's also pretty normal to re-open those when someone has a substantive objection. The only argument on the move side that provided any substantial analysis was Yaksar's, and Necrothesp's point about the cardinal being the obvious primary topic based on significance was solidly grounded in policy.

To put it in context: we've made someone who is a possible candidate for deletion at AfD (not sure how it'd go, but there's a possibility of deletion) as being more significant than the most significant figure in the Catholic Church's response to the sex abuse crisis. One of them probably won't have a Wikipedia article in 5-10 years. In 100 years, books will probably still be referencing Sean O'Malley's response to the Cardinal Law scandal upon his appointment as Archbishop of Boston.

Basically, I don't fault your close, but it wasn't a robust discussion by any means, one of the participants was an IP, and no one really addressed the long-term significance point that Necrothesp brought up, and that's an extremely significant point from a policy perspective. When I was more involved with RMs, when someone came forward with a substantive objection to the close from a "this should be discussed more/wasn't addressed" standpoint, typically I'd normally do a courtesy relist, which is where I'm coming from. Basically there's a pretty strong policy rationale against this move that wasn't really discussed in-depth in the discussion, the move was relatively recent, and the burden shouldn't be on those advocating for the status quo to have to re-prove it after a discussion that didn't really say much. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Tony's points and request for reopening. The cardinal is undoubtedly frequently referred to in reliable sources as Seán O'Malley, probably more than by his full name. He is clearly the primary topic for this name, as he obviously beats the fighter hands down on long-term significance (currently active sports figures are almost always going to prove primary if we only take pageviews into account), and I really don't think the presence of the acute accent is enough to provide decent disambiguation, as accents are often omitted. These points were addressed by only one of the contributors, with the others simply ignoring them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a response to the above. Like I said, I think this is a fairly normal request for an RM without much substantive input, and I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't been reopened yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really think a RM should only be reopened very soon after it's closed, within a reasonable frame for the RM to be continuously open. For example, an RM is closed after 7 days, the next day someone posts and asks it to be relisted, I would probably say yes. But a month after it's closed the only reason to be overturned if it was badly closed in the first place, which I don't think it was. Otherwise, it shouldn't be reopened for the same reason why move requests should not be left open for months. Long term significance was never addressed during the discussion. The only comment being that there's "no way the fighter is the primary topic". Such an assertion is not a strong argument without explaining why it's the primary topic (pageviews, coverage in reliable source, long-term significance, etc.) along with some evidence that supports the assertion. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of the discussion, but the time thing is reasonable, but it also leaves us with a ridiculous result: this was very obviously the wrong outcome from a policy basis. The arguments for moving were extremely weak and had been rebutted (i.e. Seán vs. Sean), and a Google page count of a sports figure vs. a cardinal will obviously go with the sports figure while they are active, but it doesn't mean that they are more significant from a policy standpoint. There's a very good reason to have a discussion about this again, and it should take place from the status quo because the original move lacked a basis in policy. I don't mind being told I'm wrong here if the points are actually discussed. What I do mind is having to start from a place where we need an active consensus to undo a move that so very clearly is out of line with the page name policies and guidelines. The burden should be on those arguing for a move outside of the norm to provide evidence to support it. That never happened. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, no use litigating it here, and while I think it's the wrong call, a move review would be a waste of time. New RM opened. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

Library design improvements deployed
New collections available in English and German
Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File rename

Hi Buidhe, you renamed File:José Fonte at the Portugal v. Poland UEFA Euro 2016 quarterfinal (cropped).jpg, but that's a picture of Jose Fonte, it's Eder, as I had renamed the crop. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Thanks, I've fixed it. Just FYI that on Commons, single names (first name or surname, even mononyms in some cases) are not usually specific enough to identify the person. There are a lot of people in the world named "Pepe" so there needs to be something else in the filename to identify, just like the footballer's article on enwiki has a disambiguator. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (2010), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Chamber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about image copyright

I've been spending some time trying to find a photo of a young David Attenborough to add to his article. My search is hampered by the fact I have no idea about copyright. As the guy is 95, I figured there is a chance the copyright of some of his youth photos would be expired. This news article shows that there are one or two photos older than 70 years of him for which the copyright is Associated Press and BBC. Is it possible that these have come into the public domain? Is the artist date of death still relevant, given the fact that copyright lies with the institutions? Thanks :). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For AP, photographs published in the US without copyright notice before 1989 are not protected by copyright. This includes most AP photographs. See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_October_5#File:Execution_of_Nguyen_Van_Lem.jpg and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_October_5#File:The_Terror_of_War.jpg for discussions in which such files have been kept on this basis. Such files may be uploaded to enwiki but not Commons unless they are also free in the source country (probably UK in this case). In the UK the copyright would expire 70 years after publication, but only if there's no known author. Just because the author is not credited on a particular reproduction, however, does not necessarily mean that they're unknown. (see c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom). Conversely, just because it's public domain in the UK does not necessarily mean it's free to use in the US. Those photographs originally published in the UK are likely copyrighted in US because of URAA. In terms of that Gentleman's Journal article, it's likely that some of the photographs are public domain, however, it's hard to say as it's unclear what the original date of publication was, what country they were originally published in, and whether copyright notice was used. (t · c) buidhe 12:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lawrence v. Texas. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

turtle image review

Can you do an image review for turtle? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anatomy of a Genocide has been accepted

Anatomy of a Genocide, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian license

Hey, Buidhe.

You probably remember my FA submission. I see you haven't answered my last comment about the Romanian license for photos. Since the license only mentions "since creation", without specifying anything about the publication, shouldn't it be OK to use? I will try finding out more about the photos' copyright status.

Also, some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia may have been taken by Romanian military commissions. Does that make the RO license apply to them?

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]