Jump to content

User talk:Buidhe/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32

Deletion discussion about James Mace Ward

Hello, Buidhe, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lightburst, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, James Mace Ward, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mace Ward.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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! 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) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about "Red flag"

In an article titled "1918 protest in Zagreb", the term "far-right" was used and I changed it to "nationalist". You commented that my change was a "red flag". Can you please explain what you mean by "red flag" and "red flag" for what?

My change was good because the concept of "far-right" and "right-wing" are present day constructs with no real definition except that it means "bad" (all the evils of humanity).

In the context of the time, the term NATIONALIST is far more accurate to describe the desires and intentions of the people involved. The Croatian people wanted their own homeland in which they were the masters of their own destiny as opposed to living under the thumb of a foreign government. 

- is there anything wrong with that?  The Croats did not desire to control how the Serbs lived and they did not want to be controlled by the Serbian monarchy.

I would state that the use of "far-right" is a RED FLAG of anti-Croat bias - I might even hazard to guess Croat-mysia (hate of Croats). Why do I say this? Because the revisions you have made appear to be an attempt at maximizing blame on Croats when in fact the Croats were the VICTIMS. ZidarZ (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

ZidarZ Historically the Ustasha were responsible for war crimes and mass murder. As evidenced by their actual actions, they didn't just want Croatian independence. Trying to downplay that is not a good look. And no, right wing is not just a synonym for bad. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide me with a definition of "right-wing" and "far-right"?
You should try to put yourself into the shoes of a person living in the time of the event, knowing only what that person knew at the time. In 1918, there was no such thing as "far-right" because "far-right" is a modern construct. Likewise what Croats wanted in 1937 was "nationalistic" in nature - that is desiring self-determination. The desire for self-rule in Croatia was no different than the desire for self-rule in any other country. When we look at the time period from the perspective of that time period the Ustase movement was primarily a nationalistic one that wanted to regain lands that were traditionally Croatian since before the times of the Ottoman conquests and the creation of Bosna. The Croatians had no desire to create a "Greater Croatia" by taking lands from the Hungarians to the north or from the Serbians to the east. In fact the Croats NEVER sent armies across the Drina River to. conquer Serbian lands. If I am wrong, please let me know.
The Yugoslav communists also committed war crimes and mass murder - would you classify them as "far right"? History shows that the Yugoslav communists killed more people than did the Croatian Ustase.
Also - the Croats never had a plan such as the Načertanije - which was a secret Serbian plan for the creation of a Greater Serbia.
I truly hope that you do not have an anti-Croat bias (hate) which guides you to promote an anti-Croat vibe in the way that you edit articles related to Croatia. ZidarZ (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
BTW - I asked "Can you please explain what you mean by "red flag" and "red flag" for what?"
Can you explain so that I can understand?
What are you trying to insinuate? ZidarZ (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
If you're here in good faith, a good place to start on the definition of far right is a academic book that covers that subject. However, what is relevant here is mainly that reliable sources call the Ustasha a far right movement, so Wikipedia does as well. The Ustasha was founded in 1929 and started with political violence that increased over time. I don't see how the Yugoslav communists are relevant; surely it is possible for both to be violent and extremist. (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Yet another personal attack. Really?
First - there is no consensus on "right-wing" as there is no consensus on the definition of "fascism".
Second, let me ask if YOU are you here in "good faith" with the aim of improving the knowledge base with historically accurate.
The only thing that results from your "censoring" of my additions and improvements to the article is an increase in the anti-Croatian bias of the article. Is that what you are trying to accomplish?
Why is the information deleted on the English page when the same information is included in the Croatian wiki page?
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosinačke_žrtve_5._prosinca_1918.
Even the Serbian wikipage uses the book by Rudolf Horvat as a legitimate source. Even the Serbian page title is more accurate than the English title that uses the term "protest" to minimize the event.
Decembarske žrtve 1918
https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Децембарске_жртве_1918 ZidarZ (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So it does not matter what another language wikipedia does. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
What? "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."
If all language wikipedias operate by the same standards and processes, then why is information and references of a Serbian page not acceptable on an English page? It seems nonsensical to me that a reference deemed reputable on a Serbian and Croatian page is not reputable on an English page. ZidarZ (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Ustasha’s were fascists, there are plenty of reliable academic sources that say so. Anything less is whitewashing. I completely agree with buidhe that changing far-right to nationalist is a “red flag”. There is no anti-Croat bias here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain what my comment is a “red flag” of?
- what are you insinuating?
On Wikipedia, a goal is to present information truthfully.
Were the Ustase fascists? Of course they were. Did I deny that?
I changed "far-right" to "nationalist" because THAT is a more truthful assessment of what the aspirations of the Croats were. If you understand what happened to Croatia during WWII you will understand that the rise of fascism happened NOT because Croatian people are evil and want to kill lots of people but because they wanted to get out of Yugoslavia. WWII for the Croats was a first "War of Independence" which they lost. The Croats fought a second war almost 50 years later which they won.
When you understand the desire and intent of that period in time, you will accept that "nationalism" is a more accurate/truthful description. Using "far-right" is a "red flag" for "Croats are bad people" and Croatomisia - hatred of Croats. You say "There is no anti-Croat bias here" but how else can irrationally maximizing negativity towards the Croatian people be interpreted.
As I asked buidhe to define "Far-right" and all he could tell me is "go read a book". I did not expect much more because there is no "reputable" definition of "far-right".
By now, it feels that buidhe has me in his sights and I am targeted for character assassination. I felt bullied by one person and now fear that I will soon be swarmed by his "friends". ZidarZ (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

Would you be able to contribute a review to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1? I am looking for reviewers, and am afraid that it might get archived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite busy recently but I'll see what I can do. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated. I fully understand being very busy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

2029 European Parliament election moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 2029 European Parliament election. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because per AFD results. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2029 in Europe

A tag has been placed on Category:2029 in Europe indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2029 elections

A tag has been placed on Category:2029 elections indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

  • New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
  • Tech tip: Filters
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverted you at Template:Genocide sidebar

Hey, I can see where you're coming from with the idea that a NPOV compliant list might not be possible but a list has been a component of that template since 2014 when it was created. No list results in a very different template and a template which wouldn't actually be used all that much. Maybe this is a conversation that we need to have but I think its too drastic a change to do just like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I can see that point of view Horse Eye's Back. This is a conclusion that I came to after extensive consideration and some disputes on List of genocides by death toll. I was trying to clean up some POV and V issues where events were being labeled as genocides in wikivoice despite significant dispute over whether they qualify as genocides. But equally, if you excluded all events about which there is significant debate, you are effectively favoring the more restrictive definitions of genocide, which in itself could be a POV issue. Then I found the List of ethnic cleansing campaigns, which if you look closer is actually marketed as a "list of events that have been termed ethnic cleansing". I think this is the right approach to use for list of genocide articles because it avoids the pitfall over whether we can term an event genocide in wikivoice (any significant controversy/debate can be mentioned in the list entry—and Wikipedia does not necessarily endorse the position that a certain event was a genocide). However, if we included all the events that have been called genocides by at least one quality RS it would be far too long to include in a template, and equally, the degree of dispute over whether it qualifies as genocide cannot be included in a template format. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Burned records after the Armenian genocide

Hi, Just read this in a PhD thesis and thought you might be interested: The Public Record Office in the town of Pınarbaşı was burned down around the time of the foundation of the Republic. Local oral history gave two contesting accounts of the incident: according to one, Armenians who survived the genocide by the Young Turks burned the records to hide their non-Muslim identity; according to another, Muslim residents of the town who took over the possessions left by the massacred Armenians eliminated the records that registered the original proprietors. The oldest population records of Karakuyu were entered in the census book kept in this office in 1903, though the book currently kept in Karakuyu was a later copy of this original. (source) Do you know if it happened in other places? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

a455bcd9 Interesting. The record burning I have heard about was ordered by the Turkish government and took place in centralized archives such as the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archive which over the years was combed through to eliminate any "smoking gun" type documents (for example see Cheterian, Vicken (2018). "Censorship, Indifference, Oblivion: the Armenian Genocide and Its Denial". Truth, Silence, and Violence in Emerging States. Histories of the Unspoken. Routledge. pp. 188–214. ISBN 978-1-351-14112-3.). Frankly, during the first years of the Republic of Turkey average inhabitants probably had more urgent things to worry about than burning records that might cause problems in the future. A lot of local archives did not survive but from what I've read this was more due to lack of interest in preserving them rather than deliberate destruction. (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know.
Another point: I'm surprised that most articles about Turkish cities and provinces that were part of the Six Vilayets have no "Demographics" section. When they do, they don't mention the previous significant Armenian populations. And if by some miracle they mention the previous Armenian populations, the reader is left to guess why they suddenly disappeared. The same goes for the Greeks and Assyrians. For instance:
Tunceli_Province#Demographics, Urfa#Demographics, Tokat Province, and Bitlis (in "History") are notable exceptions.
I assume that the borders changed but the sanjaks seem close to today's provinces and the 1893 census, despite its flaws, seem to give the ethnic population by sanjak if I believe Erzurum vilayet. So could we add a section "Demographics" to all Turkish provinces and/or provincial capital cities with:
  • The 1893 Ottoman census of the sanjak, with a note such as "The borders of the X sanjak do not exactly fit the current X province. The Ottoman Armenian population was deliberately underestimated by the Ottoman authorities. The category "Muslim" includes converted Armenians."
  • Below a text such as "During the 1915 Armenian genocide, most of the Armenian population was massacred."
  • If possible, other censuses and data
What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Raymond Kevorkian's book The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History has a lot of this information.
I don't know if statistics for the present day Turkish provinces exist. I don't think it should be mentioned if the figures don't exist for the Turkish provinces because the jurisdictional boundaries are not the same. Additionally, to me, it's not clear how relevant it is given that the events occurred prior to the formation of that jurisdiction. (I realize some editors disagree but I for instance think the article Czech Republic is about the modern country formed in 1993 and should only include pre-1993 history as background). Notably, the pre-1915 population figures are difficult to state with any precision, to the point that credible estimates for the number of deaths in 1915-1916 could vary by a factor of two.
This consideration does not affect the city articles, since the relevant cities/towns were founded earlier. (There are some weird ones like Elazığ where the article scope seems to be the current city after it was largely destroyed during WWI). For the geographical articles whose scope covers 1915, I would support adding Ottoman census data with the relevant caveats. The Armenian genocide is actually mentioned in many articles about Turkish cities and towns, especially in the history section, but demographics are less likely to be included. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
OK for provinces: I agree.
For cities: where can I find the data? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Kevorkian's book is geographically organized and he provides estimates of significant towns and cities in the relevant sections of his book. For example, on page 613, the first page of "Chapter 23: Deportations in the Mutesarifat of Urfa" he states, "On the eve of the First World War, the mutesarifat of Urfa, which had been detached from the vilayet of Aleppo in 1908, boasted nearly 42,000 Armenians, 25,000 to 30,000 of whom lived in Urfa and its environs". I can send you the relevant sections of the book if you wikimail me (click "email this user" on the left side of the page). Although the 2006 French edition is available via WP:TWL at cairn.info, it does not have as much population data.
Kevorkian also has data from the Armenian patriarchate's census by kaza but not by municipality. He doesn't have detailed breakdowns of the Ottoman census, I guess because he is critical of its accuracy. If you specifically want data from the Ottoman census, I might look in Karpat, K.H. (1985). Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics (I don't have access). (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks I'll email you. As mutesarifat is the sanjak, for the page about the city of Urfa what should we write? Something like this According to Raymond Kevorkian, on the eve of the Armenian Genocide, there were 25,000 to 30,000 Armenians in Urfa and its environs, totaling 42,000 in the whole broader sancak of Urfa.?
Yes, it would be great to add the Ottoman census. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thank you for you massive edit of Selective androgen receptor modulator. Even the subject is so different from your typical interests, your SARM edits was superb ! Walter Tau (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome :) (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Buidhe,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Causes of the Holocaust

Information icon Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Causes of the Holocaust, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Truss

Saw this; it does have two supports, I think, which is the usual minimum. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought that this page was for articles that already had sufficient supports to be promoted but were missing source and/or image reviews. I don't think two reviews are "several". If what is meant is "at least two" the text should be edited to clarify that. (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
OK -- I don't have a problem with requiring three, if that's the consensus. I think in the past people have added them at either two supports or more; that was why I queried. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, buidhe. Saw the notice at the top of your talk page, so asking: any chance you could do an image or source review/source-text integrity spotcheck? Aware you don't like BLPs at FAC, so no worries if you've no time nor interest in doing one. Just to check. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm busy, won't be able to make the time. (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Germany

Buidhe. it was not my intention to start a controversy with my addition of an infobox to the article, so apologies for the flare-up. I wanted to bring a bit of structure to the article because it really looked like a draft in a Sandbox. So, adding an infobox, a few "see also" links, and full descriptions to images was a simple way of getting this done. E-960 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required and don't always improve articles. Personally I am opposed to their use on many genocide related articles because they are likely to lead to unsupported and inaccurate oversimplification such as listing an ethnic group /nationality as the perpetrator. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If you may (review help)

If you may, fellow Wikipedian, could you inform me on what should be done with Jean Joseph Marie Amiot's review?

I mean, I started the Talk:Jean Joseph Marie Amiot/GA1, but haven't quite understood what went wrong... Excuse me, it is my first review and the instructions are too detailed to accurately execute...

Thank you in advance!

L'OrfeoSon io 17:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

L'OrfeoGreco , your review looks like a great start. After posting the review, you wait for the nominator to respond. Make sure to do a spot check of sources (see wp:reviewing good articles) before you pass it if you haven't already. Thank you for helping with the backlog. (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Good to hear! Thank you too for your guidance! L'OrfeoSon io 19:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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 22 reviews between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Request to weigh in on motion re: Substance abuse

Hi Buidhe, hope you are well. I am writing to ask you to please weigh in on my motion to move Substance abuse to Substance use and misuse. The motion, rationale, and discussion are at the very bottom of the talk:Substance abuse talk page. Let me know if you have any questions, and cheers. HussainHx (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Article restoration

Would you please restore this article? Thanks. 39.34.179.108 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

FAC permission

I want to request permission to nominate a FAC bypassing the 2-week countdown from my previous, unsuccessful FAC on 4 October; I want to nominate a different article which I have finished refining but I am subjected to the 2-week burden. Can I please just go for it? Wingwatchers (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wingwatchers the FAC coords do not, to the best of my knowledge, grant exceptions to the two week wait after unsuccessful FACs. Since I am resigning as coord you are free to solicit the opinion of another coord about the matter. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Help needed at Edvard Beneš

Hi, Buidhe.

Nearly two weeks ago, you removed some non-defining categories from the article Edvard Beneš. A week later, ThecentreCZ re-added some of them, calling them "defined" without justifying why they are defining. Yesterday, I was checking the history and found their edit, and based on my reading of NONDEF those categories were indeed non-defining, so I reverted ThecentreCZ's edit, explaining why. Over a period of about 6 hours, ThecentreCZ reverted my reversions, and I in turn reverted theirs. Each time, I have tried to explain what "non-defining" means and why those categories are against NONDEF, and each time ThecentreCZ keeps changing their argument or merely declaring that the categories are defining. I am still not sure if they have read and understood NONDEF.

Frankly, I'm at the end of my rope with this, and I need an adult. I have tried to explain to ThecentreCZ why the categories are a NONDEF violation, but at this point they still don't understand (I am unsure if from inability or unwillingness, but Hanlon's razor leads me to the former). So I am stepping back from this and going to bed soon, before I lose my cool. In any case, ThecentreCZ and I are both at (but not beyond) the 3RR limit. I would like you to take a look at the situation, Buidhe, to try to make ThecentreCZ understand what my objection to those categories are, and to settle if the categories are defining or non-defining.

Thank you. - 87.58.35.171 (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Middle names?

Re Samuel Clowes Huneke: I guess Lee Oswald and John Kennedy would disagree, but isn't it the general practice to locate biographies at Firstname Lastname unless disambiguation is required? jp×g 22:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know names follow general article titling conventions based on which are most common, recognizable etc. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Military dictatorship

Hello! I know you previously expressed interest in the military dictatorship article. I'm thinking about nominating it at FAC, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in doing a source review. You come to mind as someone who's qualified to do such a review; it was actually some of your FACs that inspired me to nominate a more ambitious one like this. And to address your earlier concerns regarding the article, I ended up partially rewriting the lead with your comments in mind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien Frankly I think the article still needs a lot of work before considering FAC.
  • Balance in the article and lead. The article is dominated by the history section, while the lead focuses on other aspects. Focusing on history in a chronological order doesn't make sense for a lot of similar topics to this, and I would consider splitting much of the content into a history article (compare the length of the history section in the torture article).
  • Comprehensiveness and article structure. After reading the article I still don't feel I have a good understanding about the causes and consequences of military rule, particularly on domestic effects beyond the political sphere (economy, culture... ?) Although your article discusses support seeking by the dictatorship, it doesn't cover the question of why do people support a military dictatorship.
  • Article title and language used. I would consider the advantages of renaming the article "military rule" or "military regime", which are used synonymously to "military dictatorship" (see Google Scholar results). Recent scholarly sources are split evenly between "military rule"[1], "military regime",[2] and "military dictatorship"[3]. Either of the other alternative titles maintains WP:IMPARTIAL and avoids the issue of labeling individuals as "dictators" especially in cases when the regime type may be disputed.[1]
  • I would consider adding a section for military occupation regimes or some content on how "domestic" and "foreign" military rule is similar or different.
  • Questionable regime classifications—here the One-party period of the Republic of Turkey is listed as a military dictatorship (?) which I've never heard before, unless you are misunderstanding the source and it actually refers to the Turkish military rule after the 1960 or 1980 coups, long after Mustafa Kemal's death. Either way, I don't have the knowledge to evaluate other regimes discussed in the article and whether they are correctly classified

References

  1. ^ Although both are used, often interchangeably, in political science research, I think the word autocracy is superior to dictatorship for our encyclopedic purposes because it conveys the key meaning with fewer unwanted connotations.

(t · c) buidhe 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers. Condensing of the history section is definitely something to be considered. My survey of the sources didn't turn up much about politics outside of saying that they're constrained or repressed, but I can always take another look.
I think changing the scope of the article would be a mistake though. Without getting into the nitty gritty of vague definitions, these terms are made distinct in the sources I've read while working on this family of articles. Dictatorship, though vaguely defined and often overlapping with other ideas, is still its own concept that can be discussed separately, and military dictatorship is its own type of military rule unrelated to foreign occupation.
I also double checked the source for that last point, and its exact wording is "As a rule they emerge in countries at peace, Kemal's dictatorship in Turkey being the only exception, unless we also classify Napoleon's rule as a military dictatorship." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien If the source is that ignorant/obviously wrong about Turkish history, I wouldn't cite it at all.
What is the difference between military dictatorship, military rule, and military regime? Show me with reliable sources and I would change my mind. As far as I can tell all three are usually applied to "domestic" situations, but military rule by a foreign power would also qualify as dictatorship (because it's not democratic) and obviously fall into military rule or military regime because of the military nature of government. (t · c) buidhe 18:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If you look at sources like The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, dictatorship is defined as something like "absolute rule unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other political or social factors within the state". There is nothing in that which would limit dictatorship to domestic situations, although the way the word dictatorship is used could be biased (another argument for switching to less value-laden language if possible). I should say that, using this definition, dictatorship is not necessarily correct when referring to all kinds of military rule that you describe in your article because it can be constrained by various legal, political, and social factors while leaving the military largely in charge.
The definition that you use for the article is "a type of dictatorship in which power is held by one or more military officers acting on behalf of the military"; to exclude control by a foreign military from the article scope it would need to be changed. Of course, this would require reliable sources that support whatever definition you give. (t · c) buidhe 18:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Dictatorships are distinct from autocracy in that monarchies and dominant-party regimes can also be autocracies without being dictatorships, and it's only with the proliferation of dictatorships in the modern era that it became the most common form of autocracy.[1][2]
Proving a negative (that military occupations are not military dictatorships) is more difficult, but in the dozens of sources I looked at for this article and others like it, I never once saw any reference to foreign occupation as a type of military dictatorship. I used the sources to inform the scope of these articles; I didn't decide on the scope in advance.
My worry about military rule isn't that it's not descriptive of military dictatorship, but that it needs to be disambiguated with the other things at military rule that are not covered in overview sources about military dictatorship or about dictatorship in general. I also think it's important that the definitions stay very broad in articles like this so that they encompass what sources say about them instead of choosing one specific definition, but that shouldn't be confused with using terms as equivalents.
Now I've seen "regime" used enough in these sources that I'd be willing to equivocate the term with "dictatorship" as they seem to do (and you'll notice that the article uses both terms interchangeably). I'd be open to a move from Military dictatorship to Military regime if you feel that's appropriate, though I still believe that dictatorship is clearer and more widely understood. For now, I'm adding "military regime" as a bolded alternative name in the article's lead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
While I don't have access to the second source, I checked the first; it says that the difference the author is drawing between monarchies and dictatorships is that the former are often hereditary, which for our purposes would suggest that military autocracies would be synonymous with military dictatorships. This source agrees, saying that while absolute monarchy is sometimes considered a form of dictatorship, the authors draw a distinction based on dictatorship not having succession rules. Of course, other RS disagree; for example this book says that "we use the terms, authoritarian regime, non-democracy, autocracy, and dictatorship interchangeably" and defines several types: military, monarchy, single-party, personalist, and hybrid.
Using the definition from the first source, military autocracy might be synonymous with military dictatorship. Still, it leaves the question of the scope of this article, if it is intended to cover all cases where the military controls the state (what I thought based on reading the article) or only the cases where the military holds (near-) absolute power as one might assume by some definitions of "dictatorship".
Even if the article scope is not changed, I still suggest a rewrite to the first sentence to clarify which military is meant when "the military" is stated. It might be helpful to add a footnote with different quotations from sources defining "military dictatorship" or whatever title ends up being used. One frustrating thing about polisci literature is the lack of consistency and precision in how some terms are defined. (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tullock (1987). Autocracy pp. 1, 18.
  2. ^ Grzymala-Busse & Finkel (2022). "Historical Political Economy of Autocracy". "How Autocracies Are Sustained".

Androgen receptor modulators 1

What do you think it should be called then? PubChem has it listed as "Androgen receptor modulators 1", as do several bioscience suppliers selling the stuff. It is similar in structure to LY305 and is discussed alongside it as an example of a recently developed SARM in the review article (which I note doesn't call LY305 by that name either). We can't call it "compound 2f" as that name is not specific enough and could refer to any number of compounds, and the full chemical name 4-[(2S,3S)-2-ethyl-3-hydroxy-5-oxopyrrolidin-1-yl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzonitrile is far too long for a page name. Meodipt (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Meodipt OK, so 2f is what you mean? Why not 2f (SARM)? The issue with the current page title is that it wasn't used in the cited sources and additionally isn't even correct English—should be "Androgen receptor modulator 1". (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes this is compound 2f, I came across it in that review article I was reading and noticed I hadn't seen it before and it is notable enough to be added, then when I looked up the SARMs page I saw you had recently created a page for LY305, which is very similar in structure and discussed alongside this one. Presumably Takeda has a code name for it but it isn't mentioned in the sources, the patent just calls it Example 59. So I just went with what it is called on PubChem and by the places that are selling it. However, I am not opposed to calling it "Compound 2f (SARM)" if you feel that is preferable, I agree that is a more accurate reflection of the cited sources. Meodipt (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2023 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 LOL you have no idea about what a constructive contribution is. Please do not add non-contextualized, primary source stats to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

2,4-Dinitrophenol

Hi, your 2,4-Dinitrophenol page edits are one sided and does not represents the real dangers of DNP. it took me almost 5 years to edit 2,4-Dinitrophenol page. You have deleted all my edits and replaced with your views- pushing the agenda that DNP is safe as a diet supplement and does not represents the explosion or even death hazard. UK have included DNP in the Poisons list as there was 33 confirmed DNP deaths in UK alone since 2008. Even DNP dust can kill as it happened in Chinese factory accident. Are you benefitting from DNP sales? Please reinstate the facts immediately, the page cannot be one sided. DNP is an extremely dangerous chemical with no known antidote. It's an explosive as per UN classification. There is now known safe dose and it's not a diet supplement as you trying to push it in your edits Kindest Regards VaioG VaioG (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

VaioG I don't see how anyone could read the page and get the impression that it is safe. in reality, I added info about non lethal adverse effects and what happens during a dnp overdose.
I do think it's important to focus on medrs compliant sources like recent review articles, which was my goal with the edits.
I have no financial or other interest in dnp other than trying to improve the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 08:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/foodgov/status/1708850153669431318?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1708850153669431318%7Ctwgr%5E657595ebced41c46eb6d18d8a7915c2480c32863%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwalesargus.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fnational%2Fuk-today%2F23845009.fsa-launches-food-fraud-hotline-due-threat-criminality%2F VaioG (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
https://x.com/foodgov/status/1708850153669431318?s=20 VaioG (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
https://doi.org/10.1631%2Fjzus.B1000265 VaioG (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
https://adr-tool.com/45/un-0076 VaioG (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
You have incorrectly changed the toxic explosive chemical into a drug in the description table.
"2,4-dinitrophenol appears as solid yellow crystals. Explosive when dry or with less than 15% water. The primary hazard is from blast of an instantaneous explosion and not flying projectiles and fragments."
"GHS Hazard Statements
H300: Fatal if swallowed [Danger Acute toxicity, oral]
H311: Toxic in contact with skin [Danger Acute toxicity, dermal]
H331: Toxic if inhaled [Danger Acute toxicity, inhalation]
H372: Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure [Danger Specific target organ toxicity, repeated exposure] "
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2_4-Dinitrophenol VaioG (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
buidhe, please explain the reasoning for reverting the 2,4-Dinitrophenol to the Drug category from the toxic explosive chemical?
if you cannot give us the valid reason I will revert your edits.
You are contributing to the number of the future DNP overdose fatalities by promoting the DNP as a drug/dieting aid as it's clearly not the case.
Dinitrophenols are toxic and explosive industrial chemicals as per UN classification and I haven't seen any proof to be classified as a drug anywhere in the world.
Kindest Regards
VaioG VaioG (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't change the infobox to minimize the dangers of dnp but rather because it did not suit MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Most of the article is devoted to the use of dnp as a drug, so it is appropriate to have a relatively short and more readable drug infobox rather than a chemical one that does not summarize the article as well. "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance".

As for the sources you cite here, I don't think that press releases on social media are a great source to use and the paper from China is a case study, which is not usually usable per wp:medrs. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly biased towards DNP use as a diet aid or you are profiting from the DNP sales.
https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/24-dinitrophenol-dnp
If I would knew your identity I could report you to the police in UK for promoting DNP as a diet supplement VaioG (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
In response to your latest comment, I think that dnp is both a hazardous chemical and a (dangerous, unapproved) drug. If the article were mostly about its use in explosives it would make sense to use a chemical infobox, but because the article is largely about the deliberate ingestion of dnp for its druglike properties the drug infobox makes more sense. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The dnp page was mostly about the toxic and explosive industrial chemical. It was you who changed all page to the use only as diet aid. You have deliberately changed the page during the last month. you took all warnings as H300 fatal if ingested, UN0076 high explosive, you put is legal to sell not for human consumption. This was done deliberately to promote illegal sales of DNP VaioG (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2,4-Dinitrophenol&oldid=1172612836 the version before I started editing also had a majority of its content about deliberate dnp ingestion, its effects, legality, and dangers. (t · c) buidhe 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
In the old version before you started to twist dnp from the toxic explosive to the diet/death aid, is there was a mistake about H300 fatal if ingested clarification? or it was falsely stated UN0076 explosive status? how mane prosecutions were listed for the illegal dnp sales? does that makes is legal to sell for human consumption? does the inhalation do not killed chinese workers? how many deaths were mentioned during the last 15 years?
Witch country or regulation clasifies dnp as a drug? I found only explosive, poison, industrial chemical classifications around the world.
dnp is no nitroglycerin. but nitroglycerin has 2 pages- as an explosive and as a drug.
You have deliberately twisting the truth by removing all warnings and adding all articles to help with illegal dnp sales as a diet/death aid VaioG (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I changed the article to state the lack of legal certainty around dnp in some jurisdictions and possibility that it might not be illegal to sell for human consumption in all European countries, because that is what the cited source says.
I don't agree that the purpose of the encyclopedia article is to "warn" people about dnp. The dangers should be neutrally presented according to reliable sources and neither exaggerated nor minimized.
It's very rare that multiple infoboxes are appropriate in one article. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for everything you've done as an FA co-ordinator (as well as more widely, obviously!) It has all been much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hollywood Whore (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hollywood Whore (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:War photographers by nationality has been nominated for merging

Category:War photographers by nationality 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. Mason (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust in the NDH

Hi buidhe, I hope you are well? I just wanted to express my thanks for the incredible work you have been doing in Holocaust articles, and ask your opinion. For many years, the genocide of Serbs in the NDH has been conflated with the Holocaust, in terms of the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia article specifically, but more generally across related articles. As I see it, there are at least two factors at play here. One is the general tendency among a minority of reliable sources to include genocidal actions against non-Jews as part of the Holocaust. It is my understanding that this is not the consensus view among Holocaust scholars, due at least in part to the unique nature of the Holocaust for Jews. A local factor is the relatively recent push to equate Serb suffering under the NDH with Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. This was partly politically driven as a means to gain greater recognition of Serbs as victims during the wars of the breakup of Yugoslavia and since. I’m interested in your view as to whether the killing, expulsion and forced conversion of Serbs in the NDH should be within the scope of the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia, or kept separate with the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 18:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I think there is definitely a case to be made for some kind of overview article about ethnic persecutions in the NDH due to the number of sources that deal with them together. Whether such an article should be titled ''Holocaust'' is debatable for the reasons you suggest (it's not the majority use of "Holocaust" in scholarly sources). Of course, there is also a case for separate articles about each of the various victim groups (Jews, Serbs, and also Roma). What I don't like is creating an article mostly about Jews and adding an "other victims" section, which is the worst of both worlds. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Right, yes. And the latter seems to be what we currently have. I also find that deeply unsatisfactory. Are there other examples of that in Holocaust articles that you are aware of? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The Holocaust main article when I started working on it. I took it off my watchlist and I have no idea what shape it is in now. I'm not aware of any others that are structured that way although I wouldn't be surprised if they exist. (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I hope you don’t mind me asking, but did you take it off your watchlist because it just became too fraught? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I just got fed up with dealing with replies from people who had not read the sources and assumed that their preconceived ideas should be reflected in the article. (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Implementing your template into Twinkle

Hey,

as you wished I requested your template Template:Uw-fv1 to be included into Twinkle. Could you please state your support for the implementation on Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Implementing_a_template_into_Twinkle?

The responsible user wrote that there's no fv2, fv3, etc. Would you be able to create those too?

Kind regards, WikiPate (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded over there. (t · c) buidhe 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Re the Félim McMahon piece on Forensic Architecture: Very interesting, and thank you for flagging that excerpt from the Routledge book. As you note, FA does have some partnerships with well-regarding organizations (BIJ and the like). Just to clarify my thinking — it's not the use of illustrations/graphics/modeling that troubled me. Plenty of journalistic, scholarly, and open-source intelligence organizations do that all the time. Rather, it's the references to FA's belief that "art"/"interpretation" is not separable from "investigation"/"facts" plus the activist bent of the organization that raised my eyebrows. And even when a source is unquestionably reliable, there's of course still the question of due weight: in an area where facts are developing rapidly, what facts/statements/views belong in an encyclopedia article? There will be a broad array of views on that. As for this article, I'll leave that to others to decide; I'm turning my focus to other areas.

All best regards -- Neutralitytalk 18:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Election denial movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Election denial movement 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/Election denial movement 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. rootsmusic (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Causes of the Holocaust

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

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. When 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! 06:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

GA mentor request

Hello, I saw your name on the GA mentor list,[4] and I have a request.

I have noticed an editor (who I believe is 100% acting in good faith and an overall positive to the encyclopedia) creating GA reviews, that I think are unintentionally disruptive. Previous attempts at bringing up issues like this on WT:GA have just resulted in the reviewers either doubling down or throwing up their hands and walking away, so I'm trying to reach out to a mentor and see if this is more effective. I received a bizarre review on a piece of software, where the focus was on the software being too old/obsolete to meet WP:N, which is not how notability works on Wikipedia or the best way to deal with a non-notable subject. I have no desire to contest this review, but when I left a message on the editor's talk page, they immediately archived it.[5] I see issues in their other reviews that all come down to offering a good-faith critique without citing GA criteria or Wikipedia policy, and thus making the critique not actionable. I think if I reach out, it is more likely to result in defensiveness and doubling down, than any kind of positive growth.

The editor currently has a review on hold, where I see similar issues. Some of the comments are outside of the scope of a GA review (like the red link mentioned) and possibly just suggestions, but this isn't clear. Other comments like The Toxicity of Rh has been lifted verbatim from the Rhenium page. This is disturbing. Similarly the toxicity of Mn. Also the organotechnetium chemistry and Technetium are too similar. don't cite a policy or criterion, but they may be based either on a copyright/attribution concern (Wikipedia:Copyright violations) or an issue criterion 3.b (Wikipedia:Summary style). And it's unclear what "on hold" means in this case, since there is a formal GA review, checking the different criteria is pending. It's the kind of thing where they are very close to providing valuable feedback and assessment, but, again, I don't think I am the one to offer them guidance.

Any assistance you offer is appreciated, and if you think it's no big deal, I'll drop it. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii unfortunately I don't really have time to look into this matter right now. I suggest you ask one of the GA coordinators or possibly an admin familiar with the GAN process. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
That is 100% fine. Real life comes first. Thanks for the response and take care, Rjjiii (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_29&oldid=1186622547"