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.

GA Nominations Inquiry

Hello Buidhe, I noticed that you removed the GA nominations for one of the topic-banned parties in the recent AA3 case. I was wondering if you happened to see the GA nomination by another topic-banned party, Dallavid, for the article about the Armenian-French racecar driver Alain Prost? Regards — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Golden I don't actually go around scanning GAN for banned editors, I just happened to notice one of them. I find it hard to believe that this French racecar driver whose article barely mentions that he is of Armenian descent actually qualifies as "pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed". Neither Azerbaijan nor ethnic conflicts are mentioned in the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban applies to any page related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan, not necessarily both. I apologise for assuming that you intended to remove the GANs of all topic-banned parties. My mistake. Best regards — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Golden I honestly don't see how Dallavid could get in trouble editing this article which never actually mentions Armenia (the country), Azerbaijan, or the conflict between them. Especially if, using an abundance of caution, he avoided the one sentence in the article that mentions Prost is of Armenian descent. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I just hope he doesn't get into any trouble because of it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Lady beetle FAC

Hello. Could you do an image review? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit at Criminalization of homosexuality

I can see quite a bit of work has been involved in the article already. Is there anything specific you want me to pay attention to? Thanks! Wracking ^💬 22:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Wracking Thanks! Anything that improves the wording and readability of the article would be appreciated. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on War crimes of the Wehrmacht

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page War crimes of the Wehrmacht, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Article for deletion?

Hi Buidhe, it's late at night for me and I don't understand how the Articles for deletion process works, but I've just come across this article: The Dominion of Canada (Country). It seems to be a misguided attempt to say that Canada is now a different country than it originally was. Could you take a look? Thanks, agus oidhche mhath Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz The lack of sources is concerning but I do not have enough knowledge of Canadian history to say whether it is a POVFORK or not. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn’t know about POVFORKS. there are already lengthy articles on Canada and History of Canada. I’ll post my query on the Canadian discussion board. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And now I see that it’s redlinked, so someone else must have noticed it as well. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Article was moved to drsftspace. I’ll watch to see if anything comes of it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverting changes to Assyrian Genocide page

Hello Buidhe, I understand and respect that you've pages a longer time than I have, I do however feel hastily removed all my edits without paying them much consideration as valuable and more accurate information on this subject. I was unaware I had to provide a source for common knowledge, such as the fact that the genocides in the era were related, a fact that is stated (uncited I should mention) relating the Armenian genocide, but none of the others I mentioned. I am active in Assyrian communities where these things are simply known, and known far better by many of them than I know of them. I feel like these things are valuable information to those looking to learn more, and should be included on the page, hence my questioning your reversal of my work. I think some of it may be fair to remove for now, but what makes certain information not needing citation (ie the relation of the genocide to the Armenian one) fine, but not the relation to the actions committed against Maronites or Greeks, or even other Assyrian genocides? LordYngling (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

LordYngling I don't doubt that you are a good faith editor, but all edits have to be backed up by a WP:Reliable source and be WP:Verifiable. All the information currently in the lead is should be already cited in the body of the article. In the case of the relation between the Sayfo and the Armenian gencocide, this information was erroneously removed at some point, but I added it back. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok yeah, I found some sources as well I'll take a look and see what I can support that I had typed prior and will provide that. LordYngling (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Somebody is Pov pushing and they undid your edit

Hello it looks like someone is POV pushing. I stopped them on this page [1] and then they went to this page. The page you did your edit on [2] just wanted to let you know. Dan white 76 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I undid only your edit, Dan white 76, and those of your other accounts (new accounts with one or two edits and only on Red Army). I assume you had edited here before. And POV-pushing means pushing praise of the subject to the lede while the subject in fact is controversial and cannot be only defined by its losses in WW2. Furthermore, that puffery was repetitive and also featured in the body. Militaryhistnerd (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Smith article - upcoming nomination at FAC

Hi Buidhe! I am here to let you (as well as the other FAC coordinators on their talk pages) know that User:P-Makoto and I intend to nominate the Joseph Smith article for Featured Article status within the next few weeks. After spending some time lurking at WP:FA and WP:FAC though, I notice that this article is lengthier and more complex than most of the articles that are nominated. I think the length is justified: Smith was and remains a very complex and controversial figure. And of course, just being complex and controversial with a long article doesn't necessarily disqualify a topic from FA status (for example, see Jesus).

That said, I'm wondering if you have any specific thoughts, questions, or comments before we jump into things? I think the length and complexity of the material has turned off some reviewers from doing a deep dive into it in the past. For example, a 2013 PR request failed to attract a single reviewer or even a comment. Is there anything you recommend to offset this a little bit?

Thanks in advance! Trevdna (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Holocaust you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit at The Holocaust

• As hard as parts of it were to read, what an absolute masterpiece you have worked on, Buidhe. A topic like this has got to be one of the most technically difficult areas to bring up to a professional standard, but you did it. A privilege to read, truly. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
  This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
• Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
  All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
• François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• My very best wishes
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Volunteer Marek
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
• The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
  As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
  In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
  [archive / log]
• When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

Armenian genocide and the Holocaust

With respect to your revert there, what was it you were trying to do exactly? I can't tell from your edit summary and suspect a misclick Elinruby (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby not a misclick. See the "debating genocide" chapter. Why have you added a failed verification tag when on the cited page it literally says "There can be no doubt, from the evidence I have presented in the previous chapters, that the Nazis knew of and were (at least in part) inspired by the Armenian Genocide." (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring this question. The source is on the same topic alright but the source does not support your text when read as a whole. There is a very big however that follows the quoted statement. It also says nothing about the 1920, the German press, or any decisions that undefined nationalists might have made. At least not on p. 333. In addition, he does "conclude" this, as the sentence you quote is not his conclusion. It is X in an argument that seems to go "while X, and also Y, the parallels are unmistakable." Maybe he goes into the press and so on earlier in the book; that would be just fine if cited to that page. Also FYI I removed the 4-5 citations to Jewish Virual Library per thisRfC Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

When an article is up for an AfD you cannot remove the tag. You MUST PARTICIPATE in the discussion. It has not been created yet but it will be as it is posted where it will be. Reverting it again can be determined to be an edit war. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC

Your revert of my attempt to discuss

I am taking it to mean that you do not stand by your revert of my tagging and will be replacing the citation needed tag. The sentence that follows the one in question is indeed cited, but that source fails verification. If you do not want to do as my tagging suggests, then fine, but the referencing in that article mostly fails RS and the attention of other editors needs to be drawn to the article. Please note that both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide fall under the contentious topic guidelines. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on your comments above I have little faith in your ability to edit articles to accurately reflect what the sources say. The sources cited in that article are fine, although I don't really care about it anymore. You don't seem to even be able to correctly leave a contentious topics notice. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

i 'can but why would I? You have marked yourself as aware. As for your claim that I am not competent to judge RS, may I ask what you base this on specifically? Please. If there is something I am not seeing here, please explain it to me. Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is LilianaUwU (yes, really). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)