Buidhe

I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.

Talk:2020 ARIA Music Awards

I would like your guidance on an issue. About four years ago, you completed a non-admin closure on a requested move of the article ARIA Music Awards of 2020, which resulted in its shift to 2020 ARIA Music Awards. Subsequent articles in the series {{year}} ARIA Music Awards have been created up to this year's version. However, prior year's awards remain in the style ARIA Music Awards of {{year}} going back to 1987's awards. Is the moving of those prior years' articles considered to be non-controversial? Or should I raise the issue somewhere?Didier Landner (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Didier Landner I wouldn't expect too much controversy given that the date-first style is generally preferred, but to avoid any conflict I suggest listing *all of them* in a single RM. (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Didier Landner (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Buidhe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SerialNumber54129 16:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Your revert on German-atrocities

Hi - You did a revert saying you didn't see the benefit. My change (just adding two subsection headings) was to make clearer that most of the content of the After-the-war section was about Soviet actions (rather than German action as per title of article). Your revert makes it harder to navigate and understand the article IMO. - Rod57 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Soviet and non Soviet actions are not separated in the section and it is about actions at and after the end of the war as the section heading states (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Post-tuberculosis lung disease

On 1 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Post-tuberculosis lung disease, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many people who recover from tuberculosis lose more than half of their lung capacity (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Post-tuberculosis lung disease. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Post-tuberculosis lung disease), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I have finally nominated the article. Please take a look if you can: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all that you mentioned. Would you mind taking another look? Your input is invaluable to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Residential schools.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information in Genocide

Hello. You did not respond to me in the talk page Talk:Genocide#Removal_of_sourced_information [1], so I'm bringing my concern here. Why was the content I added recently deleted without any talk page discussion?

I understand you are improving the article, and you are doing great work. And I understand replacing content sometimes happens, especially if it's old or poorly sourced. But my edits were recent and sourced with high quality sources.

Should I expect all my edits reversed or deleted with mass edits such as this [2] in the future? Bogazicili (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocidal intent

Hi, I fixed the reference errors which you introduced to Genocidal intent. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Slovak Republic

Why not move Slovak Republic (1939-1945) to First Slovak Republic? 91838jeu72737 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

91838jeu72737 I'm not necessarily opposed, but you have to use the correct process by going through WP:RM and getting consensus for the move. (t · c) buidhe 13:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		To Buidhe on the occasion of the Minneapolis FA being kept. Your review of images made the difference. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Alison Chabloz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alison Chabloz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 8 § Alison Chabloz until a consensus is reached. Launchballer 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Dispute against EU Reporter reliability

@Buidhe I believe we should start a noticeboard discussion about EU Reporter. You seem to be strongly against it, but you are the only wiki editor that I am aware that has such a strong negative view against EU Reporter. There are quotes from this news website in Ukranian government websites: [3], [4]; Azerbaijani government websites [5]; Croatian goverment websites [6]; and others. Are you telling that all these goverments are trying to manipulate the news or they are naive enough to use unreliable sources for their official reporting? Do you have any other indication of Wikipedia consensus on the unreliability of this source other than your own research? Contributor892z (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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