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.

October 2024

Per Wikipedia:Civility, please refrain from comments such as If you aren't capable of finding it with a quick google search [1]. There are no exact google matches with that quote, even when you only google the part after [Churchill], probably because the article is behind a paywall. Results of google searches may also differ based on geographic location. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, please be respectful of other people's time.

Overall, what I find most problematic is that you are giving details of the source you mentioned after being asked third time, and with an uncivil comment. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize until then that I had forgotten to add the link. You could have asked for it.

I did not mean to comment on anyone's googling skills, merely intending to say that nearly any quote can be matched to the source using this method, paywalled or otherwise.

In the meantime I don't find it particularly civil that you keep accusing me of deliberately trying to skew article away from mentioning north America, although I have repeatedly told you this is not true. (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you are deliberately trying to skew article away from mentioning north America.

I said I am very concerned that anything mentioning Native Americans or Americas are being removed.

I don't know if you are doing it deliberately or not, just to remove mention of Native Americans (or related issues). It is entirely possible you are only concerned about sourcing. But I am concerned about the lack of mention in the article. That's not a comment about your motivations.

Please do not misrepresent what I say.

And I asked for the source 3 times:

What is this 2020 paper? [2]
You didn't cite any source. Where's the link? [3]
You said "About this, a 2020 paper states". You never linked this 2020 paper. Before you had given a link to a 2009 paper [4] Bogazicili (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment...

I've been putting together Draft:Dorian invasion (alongside Ifly6) to replace the currently not-so-great article we have on the subject. There's a section on the role of the Dorians in Nazi racial theories, and in (mostly) German nationalist/racialist thought since the C19th. If you have the chance, would you mind taking a look at that bit and giving it a sanity check to see if I've missed or mistaken anything? As you can imagine, I'm keen to get this as close to "right" as possible before shifting it to mainspace, given the nature of the topic and the views held in some quarters about it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist Unfortunately, I don't think I would be of much help as I don't know much at all about the topic :) Your article looks pretty well researched but you may need to cut down on the lead length (t · c) buidhe 16:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: appreciated. I though your work on genocide and the Second World War might cross into Nazi racial pseudoscience: do you know of any other editors who are particularly well-versed there? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure since I haven't really edited in that niche. (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- thanks for giving it a read, especially given the poorly-judged request! I'll keep working on the lead, particularly if it ever comes anywhere near FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct Dispute

This is pursuant to the Resolving user conduct disputes. In addition to concerns about WP:Civility I outlined above [5][6], I am concerned that you seem to engaged in a slow Wikipedia:Edit warring in Genocide. Your reverts:

4 October 2024: [7] (this affected some of the parts in dispute)
26 October 2024: [8]
30 October 2024: [9]
5 November 2024: [10]

This is despite that I had suggested multiple dispute resolution avenues both in Talk:Genocide and in your userpage.

In Talk:Genocide:

6 October 2024: If you disagree with all of these, we can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard [11]
30 October 2024: I also find it very difficult to work with you and communicate with you. I'd like to move to a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests venue. I had already filed WP:DRN request [13][14]. Do you not want to proceed with this? [15]. We can also try a 3rd opinion. In the future we can also proceed to an RfC, but there are several issues at the moment. [12]
31 October 2024: About WP:ONUS, to achieve consensus, I suggested multiple dispute resolution methods here and in your talk page [17][18]. WP:BRD remains in effect. If you are not sure what version needs to be reverted to, ask an administrator for help [13]

In your userpage:

30 October 2024: Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion [14]
30 October 2024: Can you clarify if you want to move on with this DRN request or not? I find your answer here vague [5]. Do you want more information about what the dispute is or do you not want to proceed with DRN? I also suggested an alternative dispute resolution method in the talk page [6] [15]

In Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genocide:

Filed 30 October 2024 [16]
30 October 2024: you replied,[17] but it wasn't obvious if you wanted to proceed with it, so I asked for clarification in your talk page as seen above.
After your above reply, you haven't responded even though DRN moderator and I have responded on 31 October 2024.[18][19]

Despite all of above, you have reverted again today (5 November 2024)[20]. In the talk page you said: you're welcome to attempt to find consensus, using a dispute resolution mechanism of your choice (5 November 2024) [21].

It's clear from above that I gave you multiple dispute resolution options. My first choice was WP:DRN, since there are multiple issues and it'd be time consuming to do multiple RfC's or 3rd opinions. But we can also proceed to those as well. The concern is you had not responded in WP:DRN saying you accept to participate in DRN discussion before your latest revert.

Please note that if this behavior continues, I'll escalate it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hopefully this can be avoided and the issue can be resolved in content dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm edit warring, so are you—you're the one who is reverting to the version that includes your additions, in contrast to the policy that says it's on you to seek consensus for the inclusion of this material. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference is that I suggested multiple dispute resolution options and filed a WP:DRN request. You kept reverting in the article, while remaining largely unresponsive to these dispute resolution attempts. I started an RfC for one of the dispute areas. Bogazicili (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello biudhe, some time ago I noticed that you basically restored the entire article to what it was before I introduced what I considered to be multiple key fixes for overall neutrality.[22] I was really intending to let it go, but now see that you reverted parts of my work again when another editor tried to reintroduce it.[23]

I would hereby like to warn you that slow-moving edit wars are still edit wars. Thank you, Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page why your header image is not as good for helping readers understand the article topic. I don't believe you have commented in that discussion. We still do not have consensus which image would be best to use, so perhaps it would be best to remove the header image until we can find agreement. I may add that if you consider me to be edit warring, your repeated restoration of the image would also qualify. (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What repeated restoration? I restored it one time while providing a requsite edit summary. You restored yours multiple times without really addressing my concerns as such. Please note that my other fixes are also not restored as of now.

In the future, please link to the discussion (i.e. Talk:Genocide#Leading photo of 'reprisal firing squad') and include a rebuttal of my reasoning as opposed to one such general-purpose comment. No hard feelings, Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biohistorian15 In some of these reverts, it was Bogazicili who restored the image as part of a blanket revert. I'm not sure what "rebuttal of your reasoning" you expect? If you want an image from a different part of the world, as I said I'm not set on a particular image, I just want one that fits certain criteria such as illustrating the main points of the article, so please feel free to make suggestions. (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get so defensive here. I provided arguments in my edit summaries and expect them to not be completely ignored the next time around. That's all. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure what I said there that comes off as defensive. I did read your edit summaries, but I don't think your image is the best choice for the article and I already explained why. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Settler colonialism in Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Settler colonialism in Australia 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/Settler colonialism in Australia 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.

Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above

Hi @Buidhe, I wanted to reach out to you since I nominated your article for deletion and since I can see that you have been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this article is not of encyclopaedic quality and does not meaningfully better Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Indigenous Australians post-British settlement. Whilst I have created articles primarily by copyediting before, the subjects of this article I suspect are best dealt with in the existing articles I referred to in my deletion nomination, where the Australian frontier wars and the impacts of colonisation on Indigenous Australians more broadly are chronicled; that said, I only just found the latter article.

I note also that you have been a major contributor to Settler colonialism in Canada. I was concerned about the extremely poor grammar and legibility of that article's lede, which I have now fixed. If there are further such issues in the article I hope you or another editor will rectify them.

Cheers :) Will Thorpe (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Hi Buidhe! FYI I think you may have voted twice in the Wikipedia and antisemitism merge discussion? :-) Levivich (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Panhandle Gap

On 23 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Panhandle Gap, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mount Rainier cannot be seen from Panhandle Gap (pictured), despite the trail being "possibly the best day hike" in Mount Rainier National Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Panhandle Gap. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Panhandle Gap), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a rewarding read; very short but immaculately researched and photographed! Keep up the good work! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Puffery inline" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Puffery inline has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24 § Template:Puffery inline until a consensus is reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]