The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Armenian genocide (estimated annual readership: 1,090,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February songs

frozen

Thank you for that article, and FAC help for my joy - more on my talk - best wishes for 2022 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations not only for the FA below, but now also Röhm scandal, - please go ahead, word a blurb, as you know the article best. Dank and dying have been wonderfully open to suggestions from a nominator. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped down at TFA in November, Gerda. I'm still available to help if someone asks, but I don't think it makes sense to say that I'm "open to suggestions", as if it's my call. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Buidhe! The article you nominated, Röhm scandal, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!! Will try to take another look at Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany FAC soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "First, there's the Nazi who became the world's first openly gay politician—in 1932. Then, there are the anti-Nazis stirring up a scandal against him, wielding every pre-existing homophobic canard and inventing a new one: that "the heart of the Nazis’ militant nationalist politics lay in the sinister schemes of decadent homosexual criminals". Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is as a microhistory in Weimar-style competitive authoritarianism. When your elected representatives start beating each other up in parliament, that's when you know democracy is dead..."! - Prayer for Ukraine - the pic I took in 2009 is on the German MP today, with a song from 1885. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Assassination of Talaat Pasha, introduced: "After shooting the main perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, Soghomon Tehlirian said, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer". His defense was so successful that, as noted by one newspaper, "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant’s bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive." The jury agreed with Tehlirian. But can extrajudicial killing ever "uphold the moral order of mankind"? Raphael Lemkin thought so; he later said that it was this assassination and the resulting spectacular trial that sparked his interest in war crimes, eventually leading to his invention of the concept of genocide."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you reverted my edit? Where is the citation that supports that claim?

• Nbro There's an entire section for it, search "gold". MOS:LEADCITE means there is no requirement to cite the lead (t · c) buidhe 13:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify what "coverage" or "independent and reliable sources" is required on Crimson (typeface), per your proposed deletion.

For the former, please specify the topics which you believe will improve the quality of the page. For the latter, all information on the page are factual and are supported by images. I will revise the page if your suggestions are concrete and constructive. Thunderbird2013 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thunderbird2013, I don't question the accuracy of the article but rather we have specific guidelines that need to be met in order to include an article in the encyclopedia. Generally, there would need to be multiple sources (such as reviews, for instance) that are independent of the typeface and discuss it. See WP:Notability. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, thank you for your clarification. I agree that the scope of the page can be expanded, but I will object to the deletion for a number of reasons.

First, you are essentially suggesting the inclusion of subjective opinions on the page (in the forms of reviews or other people's "discussion" on the typeface, as you put it). When I created the page, I purposely keep the information as factual as possible, as I recognise that typography can be subjective and I believe biased opinions are not beneficial to the community. I further backed up any claim on its design with images, which provide more value to the readers than the opinions expressed by single individuals.

Second, digital typefaces are software and it is especially true for an open-source typeface such as Crimson. Hence, the most important sources of information on its design goals are software repositories such as GitHub and CTAN, which I have repeatedly cited on the page. Review-type information is welcomed, but is secondary (and, by definition, biased).

Third, with a few exceptions (e.g., Roboto), open-source typefaces are seldom formally reviewed, and are never academically studied and described in research outputs. What you suggested are not realistic or practical. Nevertheless, Crimson and its variant Crimson Pro are some of the most popular open source typefaces available, as such information about this typeface should clearly be documented on Wikipedia.

I thank you again for your feedback, but please flag sections as needing for expansion if you think that elaboration on their contents can be constructive. Thunderbird2013 (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thunderbird, I apologize if I wasn't clear above but the problem with the article isn't its content. Rather, the encyclopedia does not cover any topic that exists; we can only cover topics that have been covered by independent sources, per WP:N. If you're telling me that no such sources exist, the article should be deleted. (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for this random message. I was concerned about File:Sirhan1.jpg and 2. It has been on Commons for around 14(!) years, licenced as {{PD-USGov-FBI}}. But, it is really not a work of FBI. FBI may have used it in its investigation, but that does not make it the author. Sirhan Sirhan is the author of the photographed work, who is (1) neither a FBI agent, (2) nor dead for 70 years. So, my question is, does Commons:Template:PD-text applies? It is more or less just handwriting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that is above TOO. The only reason it might be ok is {{PD-US-no notice}}. (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOO is 'threshold of originality', right? As for PD-US-no notice, we'll need to prove that it was published during that time period without copyright notice. Because the year mentioned on the commons page is wrong. The books was published in 1978 [1], without a specific copyright notice for the image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the jargon, TOO=threshold of originality. so PD-text would not apply. PD-US-no-notice may apply, but it's not clear to me; Nikkimaria probably knows. (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that, I didn't want to, and didn't like it, and I grumbled the whole way, but I did what you asked and added an aftermath section. It annoys the stew out of me, but you may have been right. It makes the article so much longer, it should probably be deleted. :-) Anyway, I suppose I should say thank you. Wasn't that gracious of me? LOL! Thank you. I always appreciate your input even when I disagree. It's always fair. And there are not enough words for how much I value that - and you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm glad my feedback helped improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Torture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Torture 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 Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buidhe. Hope you're okay. I've seen that you have an interest in this article and I wondered if you might wish to add anything at the review I've just done? It is nowhere near the standard and I've applied immediate WP:GAFAIL. I haven't commented on stability because you raised concerns after it was nominated and I'm not certain if those were satisfactorily addressed. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker I agree with the review and don't have anything to add. The article overall is underdeveloped which does not lend confidence that all aspects are covered adequately. (t · c) buidhe 20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lake Estancia/archive1 § Buidhe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Torture 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! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article First homosexual movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:First homosexual movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Buidhe! The article you nominated, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your level of accomplishment is suspicious. Have you been gifted futuristic editing technology from an advanced alien race? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish! (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you please mind explaining why you've undid my edits to Denaturalization, seeing that I have already added the necessary references in the edited version? Is there a major objection on your side for my adding of the content itself, or would it be an issue with some of the content wording (in which case if you would please give your suggested improvements)? NoNews! 04:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newfraferz87 If you are going to add content, it needs to be supported by reliable sources—ideally the scholarly sources which are in abundance for this topic, rather than news reports which don't necessarily show due weight. Your edit claims there are "many" ISIS brides that were denaturalized, but the ISIS brides article only refers to "dozens of girls and women". (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point, seeing that the sources that claimed the women were denaturalized are directly taken from the Brides of ISIL article which notes so. That's why I asked you the earlier question, as to whether you had problems with the content being added, or with the sources, or with my wording (in which case "many" as you've said, if I were to change it to, say, "several", that would render the sentence more accurate). I find it significant to include these cases of denaturalization so if you have any objections, I'd appreciate if you can point them out more directly. NoNews! 04:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newfraferz87 Besides the failed verification issue, it seems WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM to me to name individual ISIS brides or discuss a case involving the denaturalization of several people. There are many more notable denaturalized people who were for example emigrants from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, Palestinians, Rohingya, etc. (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Ok I see that there's the phenomenon of people traveling to the Middle East to fight for the Islamic State group sentence, but that sentence itself is non-specific and uncited and doesn't have intra-wiki links about the people that got involved with ISIL, and were then denaturalized. Essentially you're saying that you don't agree with both (a) naming any individuals, and (b) Using non-scholarstic sources? Suppose if I find some new sources to expand on that point and add intra-wiki links to Brides of ISIL and/or List of Islamic State members, would that be suitable? NoNews! 05:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary of expanding that section of the article because, while the terrorism issue has gotten attention recently in the English-speaking world, it is a tiny percentage of overall denaturalizations. If there were an article about foreign fighters for the Islamic State, that would be reasonable to link, but a link is not essential. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see. I'll take note to find other relevant sections that I can first improve on then before (and if I decide to) return to this one. Thanks for your clarifications. NoNews! 05:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Melbourne/archive1.
Message added 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to reply too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Externalization (migration), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to repel migrants, the European Union has paid hundreds of millions of euros to Libyan partners known to be involved in human trafficking, slavery, and torture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Externalization (migration). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Externalization (migration)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sayfo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in addition to the Armenians, the Assyrians also faced genocide in the Ottoman Empire during World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sayfo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sayfo), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

“WarKosign” 10:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: please exercise some care when delivering DS notices. You need to check the user talk page to see if they have declared awareness, usually by using Template:DS/aware. Buidhe has done so, indicating her awareness of ARBPIA DS at the top of this page. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 13:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Torture (estimated annual readership: 424,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For this TFA. JBchrch talk 19:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• use Earwig
• Open the article that needs to be cleaned
• Physically delete or edit the copyvios. each of them. IT;s pedantic but doable
• Save the edit
• Ask for a copyvio revdel. This is easier than you think, there is a tool, I think Enterprisey's

Hope that helps. The error of the lack of source url is not yours. It hit a lot of us. It's a bug. The more we spotted the more work we get to do now! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buidhe,

I don't know what is going on in this move but apparently this page is now redirected to itself. This has resulted in 8 other redirects to this page to be tagged for deletion. Is there an actual article any where in here? Thanks for any clarification you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by redirecting to the correct page Karl Maria Kertbeny. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Armenian genocide article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 24, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 24, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, stop adding alert symbols on my talk pages. Any edit warring doesn't occured, its your contraption, might be mistaken. On case of so-called edit warring is necessary to fulfill rule of three-revert rule (3RR) which doesn't aply on this case at all. As I said in broather sence, removed factual information was removed in recent time by non-indicated edits. This cause in the infobox is although never to be sourced and if, then with notification with proper date, which may be taken in regard after sometimes even lot of time. Thank you --ThecentreCZ (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: a discussion which you previously participated in was quiescent for a while, and has recently resumed at Talk:Czech Republic#Cutting the history in the lead. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe - Thank you for spending the past year and a half continually improving Sayfo. I'm deeply moved by all the time, effort and energy you've put into this article and that you were able to successfully petition to have it featured on the main page. Your work is like an answered prayer for the Assyrian community worldwide who at times feels like an unnoticed minority. I don't know what motivates you to do all of this, but I am grateful for you and your work, and pray for your health and happiness in life.

I wrote up A LOT of notes on the talk page. Please use your best judgement to consider what is discardable when making future edits. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:C041:93E0:F91B:32D3 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, I'm a new editor here. Can you please tell me where should I put that information in talaat pasha article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBX4 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi CBX4, you may have noticed that there are 2 parts of an article. The first part (lead) is supposed to summarize the content that comes after the break. Talaat's masonic activity is actually already mentioned in the article in the section "Early activism": "Talaat was also a member of the Bektashi order and in 1903 joined the Salonica Freemason lodge Macedonia Risorta, using both channels for his activism." However, his masonic membership wasn't a particularly important aspect of his life, so there is not enough space to mention it in the lead. (t · c) buidhe 09:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe - I just saw your note on Sayfo's talk page. Were you done deciding on all the considerations, or were you still planning on spending more time on it? I was going to continue the conversation on the talk page but I didn't want to until you had a chance to conclude. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:40C0:7D9:751A:B53D (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed a section from Tu quoque, added by an editor who is not me. I have restored the section because your removal was unexplained. If you still wish to delete the content, let's go to the talk page. MarshallKe (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallKe This content is not about the fallacy but instead about the Tu quoque defense, to where the content was moved. I apologize for the lack of clarity in edit summary. (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing this discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1026572059#Requested_move_27_May_2021 and you were debating whether to use "seyfo/sayfo/assyrian genocide". I wasn't sure if using this https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=assyrian%20genocide,seyfo,sayfo ever crossed your mind, but if it didn't, now you now have another tool to inform how to determine the common name for other articles.

It's really interesting because if you look at the breakdown by region "Assyrian Genocide" tends to be used where there's more Eastern ethnic Assyrians (Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean) and Seyfo is used where there's more Western ethnic Assyrians (Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic).

Also "Seyfo" is searched way more than "Sayfo".

Another tip is that you can use the "OR" operator to deduplicate search results like this https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Seyfo+OR+Sayfo%22+genocide&hl=en&as_ylo=2010. Sometimes the search results are spurious, imo summing the number of citations in the first few pages (top matches) is a better approach. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:7CE1:2F12:AFAF:1A2B (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2600: You may not use Google trends ever for determining the WP:COMMONNAME of a topic. Trends measures user queries and nothing else; usage of the terms in question is completely excluded from Trends. Putting it another way as a Q&A:

• Q: What percentage of the data presented by Google Trends reflects the content of reliable sources?
• A: 0.0%. None of the data presented by Google Trends represents reliable sources.

The results of Google scholar are quite different, and are certainly reliable sources in almost all cases (except for some predatory journals), so they may certainly be used for judging WP:COMMONNAME. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up: your OR query was malformed: it should be "Seyfo" OR "Sayfo", not "Seyfo OR Sayfo" which erroneously includes the OR operator within the quoted expression. In this particular case, it doesn't matter, because Google's query rewrite capability reinterprets your query with the logical OR operator excluded from the query, but that won't necessarily always be the case, so in general, be sure to exclude the OR from your quoted query expressions. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, yes you're right, search queries themselves are not reliable sources. And thanks for catching the syntax error in the query as well.

I'm gradually figuring out how things work on wikipedia and informative comments like this are tempting me to actually create an account. Here's an apple for being a good teacher 🍎

2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:E149:D4BB:6636:C359 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Torture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that torture (example pictured) causes a higher risk of trauma than any other known human experience? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Torture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Torture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a page split, of material which had existed in more-or-less this format for something like fourteen years. Moving it to draft is probably not the right thing to do. Templating me as if I'm a rank newbie is definitely not the right thing to do. Whatever button you pushed to make this happen, I would advise thinking twice about pushing it in future without the bare minimum of due diligence in checking how exactly a new page came into existence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant how many edits you have. In fact, the more experienced you are the more I would expect you to know that all mainspace content should have a verifiable source. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So tag it. Hell, delete it if need be. Draftspace serves a specific purpose, and this ain't it. I'd rather it didn't become a graveyard that people used to bypass the usual deletion process. I assume this wasn't your intention, but the outcome is the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved this back. If you feel so strongly about it, take it to AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thumperward - There are two problems with the list. First, and more seriously, it has no references, and so is not verifiable, and User:Buidhe was giving you a chance to add references. Second, it is list cruft. If you provide the references, then the community can decide whether it should be deleted as list cruft or kept. The two places for articles with no references are draft space and AFD, and you have made your choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Buidhe - I'm gonna be peacing for a while. Through our rapport the past few days I've learned a lot about withholding bias and applying an evidence based approach to understanding history. Thank you again for all your work 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Torture in popular culture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that efficient and professional torture is found only in fiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Torture in popular culture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Torture in popular culture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mass rape has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, could you please review the page Sbircia la Notizia Magazine? Thank you--Basilio007 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad youre chipping those GAR request at the articles bit by bit, there are just so many awful GA articles like for example Zytglogge and American popular music. 2001:4455:364:A800:F019:2C8:D5A4:FC57 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, thanks for your efforts but it's especially helpful if you list the shortcomings of the articlo on the talk page. For example, for Zytglogge there are four citation needed tags but I'm not sure what else might be wrong with it. (t · c) buidhe 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nuremberg trials 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have plans on closing this review soon? Its been going on since September. GamerPro64 04:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use File:USS Varuna drawing.jpg for an article, but the licensing needs worked out a bit. It was originally tagged as a work of a US Government employee in the course of their duties, but that appears to be false so I have removed it. The image source on DANFS indicates that it was produced in 1904, but that does not seem to necessarily represent the publishing so the current pre-1927 tag on their isn't really sufficient. The creator of the drawing, R. G. Skerrett, has been dead since 1947. If I've understood things right, the image should have gone out of copyright 70 years after Skerrett died, and would have entered the public domain in 2017, but that may not be right and I'm not 100% sure how to licensing tag it even if it is Hog Farm _Talk 20:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Your interpretation seems to be correct, I dug up an archive link and it does not indicate that the underlying artwork is a US gov work. We can't rely on PD-unpublished because it was published at least by 2002, before the copyright would have expired. Relying on the Hirtle chart and assuming it wasn't published before 1989, it is likely that this copyright will expire on 31 December 2047. :( Sorry. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced with File:USS Varuna rammed by CSS Stonewall Jackson.png, which was verifiably published in 1887, so that's PD. It's a shame, given that the previous image had been quite good quality, while the only PD replacements are rather grainy and less detailed. Hog Farm _Talk 23:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nuremberg trials you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nuremberg trials for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[2]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I thought I'd let you know that when you trim content in Mars, you sometimes remove some references that are list-defined which get orphaned and leave a citation error; which I guess isn't so nice to look at, especially in a featured article. I think might be helpful to remove those references in that case. Satricious (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nuremberg trials you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nuremberg trials 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Nuremberg trials (estimated annual readership: 1,430,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: @HouseOfChange: do not move the Russian disinformation page again without discussion. Neither of you has previously made a single edit to either the article or the talk page and you appear not to have read either one at all. If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there. To show up there in tandem with another editor who also has never touched the article, minutes after I told you on another page that you don’t understand the reliable sources policy, is blatant edit warring and only proves my point. You cannot prove a preponderance of RS if you do not understand RS. Please go read the reliable sources policy: WP:RS Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]