User talk:Buidhe/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Buidhe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

An editor has asked for a Move review of Telephone (game). 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. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

HI Buidhe/Archive 12,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good morning. Please see the talk page for in praise of blood. I would be grateful for your view. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Not even past, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Ryan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your undiscussed move of the article above from Nazism and race, do you realize that there exists another article, Racial policy of Nazi Germany? In what way do Nazi racial theories differ from their policies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken There is a distinction between racial theories (theoretical understanding of who was designated an "inferior race") and racial policies (discriminatory policies based on such bogus theories). Policies were affected by pragmatism as well as race theory, for instance the nations that agreed to ally with Nazis were treated better. "Nazism and race" is too vague for the article content—which focuses on racial theories—as well as violating WP:AND ("avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism""). (t · c) buidhe 09:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I accept your argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Living instrument doctrine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the reviewer responded nearly 2 weeks ago. Are you returning to this nomination or should we mark it for closure as unsuccessful? Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah as I stated in the nomination, I believe that fulfilling the directions for what the reviewer considers NPOV would itself create an issue of undue weight to the perspectives he wants to be elaborated on. The article already discusses prominent criticisms of the doctrine. (t · c) buidhe 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll ask for a new reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. The nominator has been waiting for your reply on her alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Jewish escapees from Nazi concentration camps has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Buidhe, thanks for all your work ! I removed your last few entries at WP:URFA/2020 for the following reasons. We have over 4,000 FAs to get through, and I don't want the page to turn into something similar to what happened at Dweller's page. If everyone runs through putting in comments about minor issues, we'll make no progress on the overall picture. It will be more effective if you will either enter comments on the article talk page, or ping still-active nominators, and then just include a diff on the URFA page for future reviewers to know who said what when and where, and be able to check what progress has been made. Follow this as an example. Dweller's page didn't work for this very reason. We basically need to know here not what minor issues there are, but whether something has been posted on talk and whether we need to proceed to the next step, be that FAR or moving to the Satisfactory list. Just a diff to the talk page will work out best in the long run. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See my additions on your edits. I don't want us to end up again in no-man's-land as most of Dweller's page did ... either "Satisfactory" or "FAR". Most require only a diff that you have notified talk. But if you think an article can avoid FAR and is satisfactory (good enough), then just enter "Satisfactory" followed by your sig. If enough people agree, we'll move them off the list ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Hi there. I do not at all object to your change/reversion of my edit to the L&L page, but I do not know for sure that the "conference papers" that the header mentions are the same thing as the series that NUP publishes. It's entirely possible, probable, that they're related, but, technically speaking, if the organizer is distributing conference papers in some Open Access form and NUP is publishing an edited collection of the same material (sort of), those may be mostly the same. But as with many published dissertations, they can differ, sometimes quite a lot. To an extent, I'm not sure it's worth the time to contact the editors and have someone adjudicate the question, but I think you've made an assumption. Nigetastic (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• AFAIK the conference papers are never distributed in any other form. Worldcat says the books are conference proceedings as well. It wouldn't make sense to distribute open-access as that would probably ruin the market for the books of proceedings. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Buidhe: You've done the research, and I'll gladly take your word for it. Thank you. But it's quite common for open-access and for-sale editions to exist simultaneously. Enough scholars want a hard copy of something they've used online that, assuming their department is paying for it, you'd be surprised, you can sell a couple hundred copies of something you're simultaneously giving away. Nigetastic (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

	a round of applause...
	...for your creation of the article Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust. I found this to be a really fascinating topic, I had known intermarriage between Jews and Germans was illegal, but I had never thought about what had happened to those who were married before the Nuremberg Laws took effect. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 01:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your bold improvements to Armenian Genocide — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

How can I create a page regarding Rawandiz massacre? It is necessary because 1) Rawandiz page is being vandalised 2) extermination of 80% of an area is notable enough to have its own page. I saw you on revision history of wiki pages about massacres and genocides and i need an experienced editor's guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, without registering an account you can't start a page in mainspace but you could make a draft at Draft:Rawandiz massacre, which would later be moved to the article space. Be careful to cite only reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it is being vandalised at the moment by a certain user and an ip (probably the same person). Where can i report those vandalisms?

• I already reported it at the Requests for page protection. Thanks for your contributions! (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This user (Ashuraya145) uses ips to vandalise the page. Is there a place to report this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:Sockpuppet investigations. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you follow the page? Ashuraya and his ip keep censoring the content with irrelevant excuses ("Russians betrayed Assyrians", etc.) According to the source, there was a massacre and there were perpetrators of this massacre who were named by the source. For some reason, it is being removed repeatedly with various excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I know that. It would be helpful if you continued this discussion on the talk page Talk:Rawandiz, preferably providing additional sources to corroborate the account of Assyrian participation in the massacre. (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do more research about this topic. Before that, the vandalism on this page should stop. I already reported Ashuraya145 on the page you suggested above (Sockpuppet investigations).

In my honest view, those comments show why we you did a good job at creating Double genocide theory and why it would be an improvement Mass killings under communist regimes into Victims of Communism, for which I can help in a sandbox or draft to see how it would be like but I would need some outlined-structure and literature first. As I repeatedly wrote at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, Mass killings under communist regimes is not only problematic for mixing all the topics I listed, among other NPOV and synthesis violations, but it is actively harmful in promoting those views which are revisionist and fringe in academia and scholarship as mainstream views. Since those views are popular among the news media and the general population, especially in the Anglo-sphere and in Eastern Europe, it is especially important they are not replicated as they reflect systematic bias of favour of the aforementioned popular literature among the public but fringe within scholarship. The same thing is now happening at Victims of Communist Memorial Foundation, where scholarly analysis is presented as criticism and "[c]alling it criticism is giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views." I was a victim of this because I thought those were mainstream views within academia and scholarship; having those article as they currently are is not only unhelpful but it is actively harmful in implying those are mainstream, rather than fringe, views. I am the proof of this. Davide King (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of True Pole at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you take care of the inline cite for ALT0 hook fact please? Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Last notice. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I offered a new hook. Could you review it please? Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Amsterdam University Press books 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!} 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I've just been going through a list of untranscluded DYK nominations, and came across two that you simply removed from the Nominations page on November 21:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Micromégas
• Template:Did you know nominations/Meat and Livestock Australia

This is not how nominations should be closed, because simply deleting the transclusion means that the nomination is still considered open by various areas of the DYK processes.

The process on how failed nominations should be closed out is at WP:DYKN#How to remove a rejected hook; I have taken the liberty of rejecting the second of these nominations, but retaining and relisting the Micromégas one since this is a student contribution from a class that is still open, and the article may still be further expanded and improved. (We have a bot that automatically removes closed nominations, both closed as successful—at the time of promotion—and as unsuccessful: it runs every two hours.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be.

Although there is a notice there that "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" you have actually made multiple reverts under the guise of one edit (22:08, 29 November 2020)‎ in which you undid many edits contributed by another Wikipedia editor.

Points to note:

1. Wikipedia articles are no one's personal property, and such attitudes contradict with Wikipedia's editorial policies.
2. The need to reach consensus does not mean that a user can unreasonably obstruct and/or impose a de facto censorship on contributions by other users unless it is reasonably proven that those contributions are in breach of Wikipedia's editorial policies. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you recently removed a category describing a living person as a genocide denier. Category:Bosnian Genocide deniers is full of identical BLP violations. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Amanuensis Balkanicus, yeah, I would !vote to delete that category at CfD. It is indeed a magnet for BLP issues and is unlikely to be defining for hardly anyone. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say kudos for getting this DYK approved. It's unusual to see something that striking make it onto the main page, and it passes the criterion 90% of DYKs fail of being actually interesting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This was a brilliant article and a fascinating read. Thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

I fully agree with renaming the article to Seyfo a more accepted term in the historian world. I'm new to wikipedia and I see already a lot of (probably) Assyrian nationalists making disruptive POV edits on the page. Could you please revert the disruptive edits made by the users on that page! 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepoeko (talk • contribs)

Hi Buidhe,

I see that your edit is once again reverted, again by Assyrian nationalists. The user States that Assyrian is the umbrella term for all Syriac-Arameans and Chaldeans which totally is not true. The same user is opposing a page about the modern Aramean people for several months already to fullfill his agenda most probably.

I think you do have a lot of knowledge on topics like these. I would ask you to join the RFC on the page Arameans so that a page about the modern Arameans will be created besides the already existing page about the ancient people. Pepoeko (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Late Ottoman genocides, is a historiographical theory which claims that the concurrent Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides were a single event rather than separate events, and it sometimes includes the earlier Hamidian massacres of Armenians, in the same event: persecution of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. It is argued by different historians and other books. Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934) was a population transfer event, not a genocidal event. Is there a reason why the edit been deleted?. Eliko007 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, as one of the sources you cited says: "Jakob Künzler’s observation is of uttermost importance. It reveals that the Kurds were deeply affected by Young Turkish population and extermination policies and subject to social engineering already before the establishment of a Turkish nation state by Mustafa Kemal in 1922.6 The discussion of the question whether the deportation and forced assimilation of Kurds by the Young Turks has to be labelled as genocide or ethnocide is, at least from a historian’s perspective, irrelevant since a clarification of this particularly legal and political issue depends on the definition of genocide one resorts to.7 It is, however, important to acknowledge that the Young Turkish leaders aimed at eliminating Kurdish identity by deporting them from their ancestral land and by dispersing them in small groups. The Young Turks partially implemented these plans during World War I: up to 700,000 Kurds were forcibly removed; half of the displaced perished. This important but often neglected fact has consequences for our understanding of the terrible fate of minorities in the late Ottoman Empire. It suggests that the fate of none of those groups, be they Christian as the Armenians, Assyrians or Greek, or be they Muslim as the Kurds, can be treated in isolation."^[1] I don't think it's necessary to mention Kurds in the lead, but reducing it to "Christians" is not supported by the cited sources, so I hoped my wording would be concise and match the source material. (t · c) buidhe 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, I don't see that sentence as inconsistent with sources, the sentence cited two specific groups (Assyrians and Greeks), and their treatment (Armenians and Assyrians and Greeks) is considered by some historians to be part of the same genocidal campaigns and policy against its Christian subjects. For example according to the scholar Adam Jones: "A resolution was placed before the IAGS membership to recognize the Greek and Assyrian/Chaldean components of the Ottoman genocide against Christians, alongside the Armenian strand of the genocide (which the IAGS has already formally acknowledged).", some sources such as The Thirty-Year Genocide which argues That the Hamidian massacres, Armenian Genocide, Assyrian genocide] and Greek genocide should be understood as a single event which targeted all the Christian minorities in the Ottoman empire. Also, the Deportations of Kurds as part of Late Ottoman genocides is not included by all historians or scholars, Have a nice day.Eliko007 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

The same user named User:Sargon Gallu is making disruptive edits on the page Seyfo. It seems like the user is pushing an Assyrian POV since he states on his own userpage that he belongs to the Assyrian nation and thus is not neutral in making any edits regarding the topic. Pepoeko (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it’s unfortunate that you feel that way. If you disagree with me on a topic, then feel free to use my talk page and make an effort to discuss the topic before reporting it. My ethnic roots does not change anything as I can argue for my edits and defend them Sargon Gallu (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Pepoeko now accuses another user of editing in a certain way because of his ethnicity, and clearly has learnt nothing from his two-week ban. In my previous dealings with admins, that accusation is grounds for a more permanent block (see here). Mugsalot (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

user:Sargon Gallu that’s not how it works. Buidhe did repeat several times that the Assyrians Syriacs and Chaldeans should be listed as different groups. Yet you keep pushing your point of view without adding any sources to that these groups fall under the Assyrian umbrella, which isn’t even true.

user:Mugsalot it seems like you are looking for reasons to get me blocked by an administrator, since you were also reporting me for vandalism without any valid reason. It can clearly be seen that Assyrian propaganda is ruling on Wikipedia thus its nothing wrong to mention. I see both you and user Sargon Gallu removing other ethnic names and replacing them with Assyrian. So yes from both of your edits it seems that there is a political agenda behind. user:ToBeFree I really understood the 2 weeks banning on the page Syriac Orthodox Church. But from what I see on Wikipedia there is an ongoing Assyrian sect removing names as Syriac and Chaldean and replacing them with ‘Assyrian’ this is a view that is highly pushed by Assyrian nationalists and thus has no place for a neutral platform like Wikipedia.Pepoeko (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Pepoeko I don't agree that you should be blocked at this point, but please remember to focus on the content, not the contributor: that is a key Wikipedia rule. If people are systematically changing names to "Assyrian" in a way that's not supported by the sources, that's a behavior issue, and their ethnic identity or political opinion (Assyrian nationalism) is irrelevant. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

True, you have a point there I’m new to Wikipedia so I’m trying to learn more about the rules etc. But even tho without providing reliable and variant sources your edit on Seyfo was reverted back again by Sargon Gallu without providing any reliable arguments. So I conclude that Sargon Gallu his edit (not he as an user) is a pushed POV. :) Pepoeko (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I don't question your good intentions, but you seem to be unfamiliar with this area on Wikipedia. It is a frequent target for users such as Pepoeko who challenge the consensus in favour of their POV and are inevitably revealed as sockpuppets (see Arameans edit history). Pepoeko has already been blocked for two weeks for edit warring, and in my experience his accusations are grounds for a more long-term block.

Pepoeko, you claim to understand your block and yet you argue your reporting for vandalism, which led to your block, was achieved 'without any valid reason'. Mugsalot (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think in fact Buidhe is very familiar with this area of Wikipedia. The Assyrian term is not an umbrella term for all these Christians neither is it an accepted term for Syriacs or Chaldeans. As far as i know I’m blocked because you kept reverting the article without providing any reliable sources, not because I vandalized the page since I provided sources and only added the name of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the Syriac language.Pepoeko (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally you're supposed to AGF that a new user is not a sockpuppet until that has been shown to be the case. If you have evidence, go to SPI, otherwise drop it. My understanding is that the terms for Syriac Christians / the group claimed by Assyrian nationalism are both contested, and that should be reflected in our articles based on the preponderance of reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mugsalot and Buidhe: "Assyrian sect", "political agenda", bah. Sorry for not having done a full block initially, and thanks for the ping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey buidhe, I don't think we agree on everything, but I think we can probably agree on what's going on at In Praise of Blood, and if you want to escalate that to ANI, please ping me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

This is to continue the conversation begun at Talk:Battleground: Ardennes#Requested move 18 November 2020.

There doesn't seem to me to have been any need to swap the page histories.

Andy M. Wang, you've said you're inactive but as the creator and as far as I can see the only maintainer of this script, your comments would be very helpful I think. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Andrewa I don't know what you want me to have done? Copy and paste moves are not allowed and there's no way to overwrite a redirect automatically. I could have requested deletion per WP:G6, but that seems like pointless waste of admin time, when there are many admin backlogs. (t · c) buidhe 12:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's get to that later. For the moment, I just want to see whether this is an appropriate use of pageswap. If it's not then we need to look at what should have happened. If it is then I think the documentation needs to be provided so everyone can use it appropriately. But first things first.
  • Apart from the fact that you didn't have the necessary authority to delete the target, was there any other reason to use pageswap? Andrewa (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was the quickest and easiest way to accomplish the move. Is there any other reason to use it? (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that it was. It had other consequences. The RM did not mention swapping the page histories, and you are unable to clean this up even if you wished to do so.
      • So I repeat my question from here: Where is this use of pageswap documented? I'm eager to learn. Where did you find out about it? Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Hey all, Andrewa asked for my input on this one. From a look at all the page histories involved, I can't fault buidhe for using PageSwap. The target history seems to be rooted in the standalone notability of the game, which was disputed at Special:Diff/684955054 when PresN boldly merged it into the parent article, prompting AvicBot to do its thing. However, this was undone three years later at Special:Diff/875213242, prompting Xqbot to do its thing.

To answer the question of where I learned about how to use PageSwap, through trial and error and probably too much goodwill from onlookers, but I got the hang of it through practice. In fact, there have been instances where I could have moved over a redirect and used PageSwap out of habit, but I now check the redirect histories to see if they're single-edit ones which can be overwritten (can't locate the diff, I think it'll be in the archives of User talk:DrStrauss somewhere). Documentation would be useful, certainly, but it's whether we decide to document it in its current form or work on a specification for a new tool with improvements (e.g. having a checkbox option to automatically correct the redirects post-swap). I'd certainly be willing to open a community discussion to form a specification and contribute where I can to the development and documentation of such a tool. I do need to brush up on my MediaWiki as it has been a while though.

From what I can see in this case though, the substantive article edit history is at the current article and the non-substantive redirect history is at the current redirect, so unless I've missed something I don't think there's an issue to rectify in this individual instance (see above for my comments on changes for long-term considerations). Cheers, SITH (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, thanks.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi buidhe, when I first started Wikipedia you gave me a warm welcome. I'd like to return the favor with these cookies! ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 12:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the requested move discussion on .NET Core was closed prematurely. The question was not only whether to move it to .NET, but also where to move it, if not to .NET. As I mentioned on the talk page, it is not called .NET Core anymore, having been renamed by Microsoft on November 10. It remaining where it is now would simply be factually incorrect. Cheers, intforce (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

intforce While it's possible to get consensus to move it somewhere other than originally proposed, in this discussion, there is clearly no consensus to move it anywhere. I think, if you have a better idea what to name it, you would be better off waiting a few weeks then opening a new move discussion. Keep in mind that former names are likely to be kept on Wikipedia as long as they remain the WP:COMMONNAME. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I want to thank you for your writing over the Germany's role in the Armenian Genocide and the way you provided insight information of what happened back in 1915. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad you appreciate it! (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what happened when you performed the series of page moves that involved John Fetterman. I clicked on the Wikidata link in the left sidebar and was taken to the dab page on Wikidata, which was still tied to the "John Fetterman" title. The mayor's page on Wikidata was still tied to the John Fetterman (politician) redirect. The only way I could fix that was to restore the dab page at John Fetterman (disambiguation). That was the only way I could tie the Wikidata dab page to the enwiki dab page, and then I was able to tie the mayor's page on Wikidata to his new base name title on enwiki. All that is supposed to happen automatically when we move pages, so I don't know what was done wrong.

However, here is how I would have done it, so please compare this with what you did. First, I would have moved "John Fetterman (disambiguation)" to "Draft:Move/John Fetterman (politician)" without leaving a redirect behind. Then I would have moved "John Fetterman" to "John Fetterman (disambiguation)" again without leaving a redirect behind. I would have then moved "John Fetterman (politician)" to "John Fetterman" again without leaving a redirect behind. The final step would be to move "Draft:Move/John Fetterman (politician)" to "John Fetterman (politician)" without leaving a redirect behind. That slightly more complicated form of round-robin page swap would ensure that Wikidata pages are tied to the correct enwiki pages when the page moves are done. Thank you for reading and hope this helps you in the future! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of FactCheckArmenia.com at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If you can, could you do an image review for the featured article candidate Paper Mario: The Origami King? Le Panini ^Talk 02:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

for letting me know about my student's translation of the Josine Müller page. It's actually fine for my course for students to do translations. However, if something in her translation was problematic more generally, I would like to know. My student did struggle with the sources a bit, so that is still a work in progress. WritingTeacherC (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I expanded this stub because I saw you linked it in your Justifying Genocide hook. I've been working on it all night but this is all the information I could come up with. I think he sounds English, but I don't have any sources for his early life and most of his education. I think all those reviews should be deleted. Are you able to improve this for a double nom with your current hook, or maybe you're planning an article about his Ataturk book? Yoninah (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Ihrig's article! No, I think he can get his own hook; I am not really a big fan of double noms at DYK. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, but it's still a stub, and as I said, I'm unable to find more information about him. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice job finding more sources, and thanks for the DYK nomination. I'll see if I can add another sentence from all those reviews. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note. As I mentioned on my talk page, I am very inactive on Wikipedia at this time. Yet, it is still good to know that what I done back many years ago is still being treated with a white-glove approach to things. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Zscout370, I suspect that your original article was quite good, but it has not necessarily been updated with the FA criteria in mind... (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but we also both know that link-rot and other factors beyond our control doesn't help things. I am going to try and make a dent in this, but as with other Belarus articles that have a similar rating, it was pretty much a one-person job over ten years ago or so when standards were different. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 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 Legobot, on behalf of Danielyng -- Danielyng (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The article Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 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 Danielyng -- Danielyng (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you closed an RFC here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com I have a slight issue as I don't think 'additional considerations apply' is a fair summary as that it from option 3, not 2. Option 2 is reliable on a case by case. I think the conclusion needs a bit more thought.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Apperantly this user voted for option 1 and still trying to use sherdog as a source instead of espn, fox etc. at pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Henderson and edit warring for it. He should just let it go. It's already over.78.190.166.140 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN Your assumption is incorrect: Option 3 is "generally unreliable", not "reliable on a case by case basis". (t · c) buidhe 14:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore the banned IP. And please read my comment again. Additional considerations apply is from option 3 and the consensus was for option 1 and 2.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not banned and in that RfC the consensus seems to be "option 2 or 3" which is "additional consideretions apply and reliable in the absense of generally reliable sources" just like Buidhe's closure notice says. You should let it go.78.190.166.140 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that we can be sensible, please read my original comment again.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please can you read my comment again? The issue is that you have summarised by using option 3, not 2.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN: Part of the issue is that the scale used in this RfC is not the same as that used in other RfCs on the noticeboard. I'm therefore paying more attention to the substantive comments made than to the bolded options because it's possible some !voters were confused on that score. I've reworded the close so it makes no mention of any particular option. However, overall, I don't see a consensus that the site is generally reliable for all types of information. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)