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.

Dispute against EU Reporter reliability

@Buidhe I believe we should start a noticeboard discussion about EU Reporter. You seem to be strongly against it, but you are the only wiki editor that I am aware that has such a strong negative view against EU Reporter. There are quotes from this news website in Ukranian government websites: [1], [2]; Azerbaijani government websites [3]; Croatian goverment websites [4]; and others. Are you telling that all these goverments are trying to manipulate the news or they are naive enough to use unreliable sources for their official reporting? Do you have any other indication of Wikipedia consensus on the unreliability of this source other than your own research? Contributor892z (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been documented to publish native advertising, which means that you cannot trust that anything you read there is not a paid for ad. It is untrue that consensus is needed to deem a source unreliable—those adding a source have the burden of proving that it is a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation you mentioned was made by a rival source in 2021 and since then EU Reporter has been subject to independent editorial control by NewsGuard, yet you still were uncomfortable of a reference to an article published there in 2022. Even based on your own argument, the independent editorial control by a rating system that is used globally is a proof that post-2021 this is a reliable source. Contributor892z (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not proof of anything, given that "There is a rough consensus in this thread that NewsGuard is not a reliable source." A source has to spend time building a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, if it lacks this in 2021 it is unlikely to be RS a year later. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Important: Please update user script installation

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria, the Jews, and the Holocaust

Hope this finds you well Buidhe. Just noticed the above (University of Rochester Press, 2023: ed. Nadege Ragaru) is open access from Boydell & Brewer, here, if you're interested. All the best! SerialNumber54129 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bogazicili (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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] Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Per Wikipedia:Civility, please refrain from comments such as If you aren't capable of finding it with a quick google search [7]. 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? [8]
You didn't cite any source. Where's the link? [9]
You said "About this, a 2020 paper states". You never linked this 2020 paper. Before you had given a link to a 2009 paper [10] 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 [11][12], I am concerned that you seem to engaged in a slow Wikipedia:Edit warring in Genocide. Your reverts:

4 October 2024: [13] (this affected some of the parts in dispute)
26 October 2024: [14]
30 October 2024: [15]
5 November 2024: [16]

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 [17]
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. [18]
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 [19]

In your userpage:

30 October 2024: Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion [20]
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] [21]

In Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genocide:

Filed 30 October 2024 [22]
30 October 2024: you replied,[23] 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.[24][25]

Despite all of above, you have reverted again today (5 November 2024)[26]. 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) [27].

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.[28] 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.[29]

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]