User talk:Buidhe/Archive 23

4341:

in the article with no references at all. During GAN for James Madison, I then went to the individual articles mentioned by the previous editors and copied over the citations which were being presented at those individual pages as documenting the issues which were uncited by the previous editor in the Memorial section of James Madison. You then pointed out that the citations taken from that other Knowledge (XXG) page which I took the reference from needed to be replaced because it was deprecated, and I went ahead and changed out the defective citation. If you have an issue with the deprecated citation which I added, your issue would need to be taken up with the editors (whoever they are) at the linked pages which are currently presenting the bad citations as being valid; the issue is not that I am intentionally using bad material as much as that other editors are currently editing with bad sources at the linked pages which the James Madison Memorial section is currently linked to. You can contact those other editors on their Talk pages by looking up their names in the edit histories of the linked article in the Memorial section of the James Madison article if this issue is of concern to you.

977:@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) 4349:

brought down to about 350 citations at about 210Kb in length at the time of GAN, which seems to be much more within expected Knowledge (XXG) parameters for recommended page size and article length. That leaves at least another 300 fully formated citations as currentlly archived and ready for use. If I add in the several hundred BTS citations which currently appear in the sister articles of the main BTS article for their individual songs and multiple individual albums, then the number of available fully formatted citations probably adds several hundred more fully formated citations. The problem is not too few fully formatted citations for the BTS article, but an apparent abundance of citations which are available and currently archived in Knowledge (XXG) history archives. I hope that clarifies your question about Kim's book and the currently available reliable citations available for the BTS article.

4235:

the split article in the pertinent main article section. The Wilkinson material was inherited from a previous editor at the GAN and I shortened it quite a bit, I think further trims are possible. Its one of those issues of not wanting to be criticized for avoiding issues which were not flattering to Madison in the article for neutrality in coverage within the article as a whole. (I'm supporting your deletion of that section). If you would like me to do the page split for Madison as author of the Constitution, then I can schedule some time to do it by the end of this week. Your edits to the article improve it quite a bit and I thought that maybe, after I do the page split, that you might consider the possibility of doing a co-nomination for the article at FAC (possibly instead of the GOCE path which may be a little duplicative at this time). What do you think?

1019:

talk page and you will be welcome. But you are assuming you and your jejeune assumptions know more about a term of art than the Marine University. Meanwhile I came back here to see if you were a page patroller or anything because that affects which noticeboard I post this to. If you want a page about Russia and Ukraine hacking each other, go write one, but good luck with that because I am hundreds of hours into the topic and I am pretty sure that isn’t what is happening. Russia makes fake videos about Azov Brigade, and Zelenskyy makes speeches. His government may or may not be manipulating Telegram; open question. That is PR and conceivably could be called an information war,!but using that definition so could the Gettysburg Address and “Friends, Romans and countrymen, lend me your ears”. And for Christ’s sake,

214:, 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."! -- 4293:

be stating, and the "book" is really a collection of various essays on various aspects of the current Korean Culture Wave and not about BTS; Youna Kim is listed only as an editor of the collected essays. The subtitle's mention of "Parasite, BTS and Drama" uses the Korean film "Parasite" as a symbolic reference to discuss the Korean film industry in general, and the band "BTS" is used as a symbolic reference to the contemporary Korean music industry in general. The collection of essays you cited as a 'book' appears to have no applicable material for the BTS article. Were you aware that your reference to this 'book' was a non sequitur?

4438: 1261: 1553: 31: 1475: 178: 913: 790:

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

391: 4396: 3576: 589: 4337:. Prof Kim is a sociologist teaching in Europe and who specializes in the general sociological study of Korean cultural influence in the world. She does not present herself as a specialist in BTS studies or as a music expert in any way. She is an accomplished sociologist with no pretenses about being a film expert for the Korean film "Parasite" or the music band "BTS"; it is not her subject. 3011:) and in fact detract from the encyclopedia since such automatic translations are not infrequently erroneous. I have experience in spotting machine translations and believe draftification is an appropriate response (another one suggested in these discussions was speedy deletion). I don't believe in treating editors differently based on the length of time that they have been contributing. ( 3655: 3906: 3416: 3260: 3179: 2922: 2835: 2783: 2696: 2543: 2462: 2312: 2215: 2159: 2078: 2022: 1941: 1885: 1800: 1744: 1663: 4168: 3517: 1590: 113: 520: 1486: 3872: 188:

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..."! -

4058:, which I have cited in the first place. You also claimed that the source is reliable, and again, I did not made any claims regarding the reliability. The problem is, I went into the source and Ungor does not cite any particular source for this part, and it is obvious that it is his own personal opinion. 4234:

In support of all your edits over night which I think are all of benefit to the article. Regarding your suggestion to split the article for Madison's part in the writing of the Constitution, then I think its fully possible to do that and maybe leave a short 2-3 paragraph summary, with the new link to

2369:

recommended you to me as someone who is good with image copyright. I have a question for you: Would it be okay if I uploaded a few classical music concert advertisements from Finnish newspapers from the 1890s? (Gosh, when I say it out loud, it sounds just so comically narrow and obscure.) These would

322:

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

4348:

was that it had over 600 fully formated citations and was over 410Kb is size, which required over an hour to read from top to bottom. All of the over 600 citations were fully formatted from reliable sources, however, there were just too many of them and the article was much too long. The article was

4218:

Nice of you to comment on James Madison. Everything you said about the FA sounded like a good idea and if you might be interested in doing the GOCE edits with an eye to doing the edits and trims which you described to me on the James Madison Talk page, then I would try to support as well as possible

3314:

can be used on Knowledge (XXG). According to its file page on Commons, it is in the public domain because it was published before January 1, 1927, but it's not clear how this determination was made because it was uploaded from a random Wordpress site, and there is no information on where and when it

4340:

Your comments about 'deprecated sources' from the recent FAC appeared to be mixed from your similar comments from the James Madison Talk page where you talked about the same subject of 'deprecated sources'. In the case of James Madison, another editor had added a poorly constructed Memorial section

4292:

I've looked through the reference which you had submitted at FAC recently and your reference listing appears to be mistaken for "Kim, Youna (2021). The Soft Power of the Korean Wave: Parasite, BTS and Drama. Routledge." Youna Kim is not listed as the author of a book-length study as you appeared to

1355:

The situation where Milošević redirects to Milošević (surname) is untenable because of dab rules. If the surname is the primary topic, it should be moved to the base name. However, the president is clearly the primary topic: for example, all of the top 30 results on Google Books for "Milošević" are

4252:

50% reduction from where it is now is not necessary (that would make it under 6,000 words). It's currently 11,777, if trimmed by 1/4 to 1/3 I don't think anyone would oppose based on length. I'm happy to take a look at it after split, but it would make more sense to make Orser67 or Cmguy777 co-nom

3740:

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

814:

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

4274:

The split is now done and the article is now linked to the newly split article, for a further trim of about 10K from the article. Orser67 is listing as semi-retired now, and Cmguy777 was not available for the GAN co-nomination, though both of them are welcome to jump in during the FAC if they can

3060:

If you read the discussions, you would see that many editors are concerned about the content translation tool precisely because of machine translations. No one but you seems to think that machine translations are good for the encyclopedia. Although the page you link on draftification is neither a

1018:

I started to type out a long answer about what is the Gerasimov doctrine but really, you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have and have harassed me enough for the day. Twelve hours in, I am all out of AGF. Go read the article. Then join any one of the discussion sections on the

3809:

for the broader RfC that led to that consensus. as to granting it yourself, what do you think the first thing every other admin went and did? All, of course, to save NPP the trouble of patrolling them; looking at you, admin-who-shall-remain -nameless who last wrote a three line stub in 20011 but

789:

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

187:

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’

245:

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).

1083:, which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Such sources could only support statements like, "After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Massaro said X" (and there would be issues with 4411:, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Knowledge (XXG) project for ten years or more. I wish I sent this at the exact 10 year mark in April 22, but oh well. Also, thank you for your stupendous work on important and highly viewed articles! 4102:

is an essay and I do not believe it represents consensus. Point is that Ungor is an expert on Turkey and similar opinion has been expressed by other scholars studying minorities in Turkey such as Baer, Rifat Bali etc. Therefore it seems reasonable to include.

4275:

find time for it. After you have a chance to look at the page split which I just put in, possibly you might have some further reflections on a possible co-nomination. I'm supporting the edits which you have made over night as improvements to the article.

4066:, precisely describes this situation: " argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument." As a result, I will be reverting your reversal and wanted to notify you. 3770:

I have no idea. I never thought much of it myself, because I don't really mind if people patrol my edits. It seemed possible that it was a safety measure - imagine what happens if an account such as this one gets compromised, that could be quite a mess.

1385:

is indeed littered with Slobodan but there's also a mention of a Bosiljka Bosa Milošević, a book from 1969, a book from 1975, a 1986 book by a Nikola Milošević within the top 30 results. As neither of those two people are actually listed as notable at

1063:'s career weren't up to standard--especially the factual statements about the legislation he worked on. Why is it ok to say he was quoted by a bunch of news orgs but not cite his actions in Congress as outlined by said articles and interviews? Thanks! 889:, 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. 2731: 3775:

seems to indicate that I may grant this to myself, or that you may request it for me at the relevant noticeboard - I would appreciate it if you would take the latter route because doing it to myself randomly just seems a tad weird to me.

470:

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.

4311:

before mentioning it, I checked the table of contents and noticed that several chapters are about BTS, so directly related to this article! Of course Kim is the editor but please help me understand why that makes the book irrelevant?

1165:, where he is pursuing a PhD." I understand that "public policy with a specialization in international security and economic policy" was flagged as a copyright violation but it's the name of a degree. How else would you phrase that? 687:

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.

1078:

For a statement like "Paul was involved in the public campaign for financial transparency and oligarch sanctions, asset seizure and asset forfeiture." it is not sufficient to cite a bunch of interviews he did, because that would be

4344:

I present this in detail because the original difficulty at the BTS page was the exact opposite of a problem with bad citations which seems so important to your comments. The original version of the BTS page from last October here

3275: 2937: 2798: 2558: 2327: 2174: 2037: 1900: 1759: 642:

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.

1603: 366:

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

4363:

The sheer number of citations is a poor indication of whether the FA criteria are met. Quality matters more. If you add a citation to an article, it's important to check that it actually supports the content it's cited for.

1039:

correction - I see you aren’t the editor with a whole two years in. That’s the one that wants to AfD an article that editor hasn’t read either. My apologies. You have been doing this less than two thirds as long as I have.

637:

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

2870: 1635: 2113: 1267: 1260: 126: 4139: 3214: 840:, 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. 2497: 368: 343: 257: 3453: 1976: 456: 3943: 3003:

There is consensus that machine-translations don't add anything to the encyclopedia (since anyone can view the other wikipedia page through Google Translate, for example of discussions see

3990: 296:

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

2666:

Hi bookku, I don't think the issue with the draft is the prose rather its due to lack of encyclopedic language as it reads as an essay taking the point of view of ex-muslim activists. (

402: 340:

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 🍎

2250: 658:

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. (

837: 1517: 1161:

I'm also not sure I understand the removal of "He completed a master's degree in public policy with a specialization in international security and economic policy from the

261: 4173: 1641:

buidhe, the nominator has withdrawn the hook you approved, and proposed two more. Please stop by when you get a chance and check these new hooks. Thank you very much.

2724: 2715: 1608: 131: 275:

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:

3524:, 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 3093: 1337:, I still wanted to explicitly reach out to ask you - did you happen to miss that change back then and do you instead still wish to advocate for that position? -- 1162: 3004: 1193:

Name of institution can't be changed, just ignore it. I would either "quote" the degree to clarify that it's the exact words being used, or else rephrase it. (

1274: 630: 337:

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.

3622: 4132:

What is 'not ready'? A description would help to correct the page. How many pages describing academic journals are acceptable? 50%? Let's review them.

1838: 3644: 3591:

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.

1325:

that undid a change you did, that you continue to still agree with their position and disagree with mine, despite the fact I elaborated that edit in

604:

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.

3958:, 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 3913: 3468:, 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 3423: 3229:, 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 3186: 2885:, 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 2842: 2746:, 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 2703: 2512:, 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 2469: 2265:, 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 2222: 2128:, 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 2085: 1991:, 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 1948: 1853:, 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 1807: 1713:, 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 1670: 1698: 1544: 1390:, it's doubtful that we can consider Google Books' algorithm as something very authoritative. Did you see the traffic pattern arguments I made at 1087:). To be honest, I'm not sure this guy is notable. Yes, he's done a lot of interviews but I'm not seeing anything in terms of in-depth coverage. ( 2442: 2393: 3292: 2578: 2494:, the European Union has paid hundreds of millions of euros to Libyan partners known to be involved in human trafficking, slavery, and torture? 2347: 2194: 2057: 1920: 1779: 3711:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

2975:—nor is "contains errors" (thank god, or there'd be nothing left in mainspace). I would say your messages to the creator come across as a bit 4463: 256:. Sometimes the search results are spurious, imo summing the number of citations in the first few pages (top matches) is a better approach. 3570: 3511: 3036:

and are not relevant to the page we're talking about. Regardless of what you believe, if you're doing NPP you must follow the guidelines at

3033: 583: 398: 253: 4084: 811: 3959: 3469: 3230: 2886: 2747: 2646:

since I am not a native English language speaker, Idk whether I can change predicament of the draft with my limited linguistic skills.

2513: 2266: 2129: 1992: 1854: 1714: 1122:

One more question: Does a news org citing a tweet and writing about it count as a secondary source? I can't find a direct answer on this.

3135: 372: 347: 242:

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.

3583:

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

596:

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

3745:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 2438: 2403: 2389: 460: 2863: 2854: 3364:

Yes, it should be fine because Egypt has a 50-year copyright term and it would have been out of copyright before the URAA date. (

2812:, but am not sure if it is ready for the main space. I am wondering if you would check it out for me? Thanks for your hard work. 4196: 3962:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 3472:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 3233:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 2889:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 2750:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 2516:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 2269:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 2132:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 1995:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 1857:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 1717:. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the 239: 2106: 2097: 523:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

3664: 3040:

and this article clearly did not meet them. That you "have experience" does not mean you are infallible or remove the need to

2908: 2769: 3793: 3061:

policy nor a guideline, it does say that draftification is appropriate when "The page is obviously unready for mainspace". (

1442: 1080: 447:

Glad youre chipping those GAR request at the articles bit by bit, there are just so many awful GA articles like for example

3883: 3838: 3815: 3345: 1136:

Depends on if they just quote a tweet (no) or write independent analysis of it (yes). There's a bit of a gray area there (

211: 4407: 4395: 4333:

The short answer to your question is that the book you mention is not written about BTS but that it is written about the

3742: 4369: 4317: 4258: 4204: 4108: 4013: 3395: 3369: 3325: 3211:, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause, is said to be "one of the stickiest problems in the ethics of war"? 3207: 3198: 3154: 3066: 3016: 2671: 2643: 2421: 1528: 1413: 1361: 1237: 1198: 1141: 1092: 1001: 820: 663: 476: 3737: 3680: 3648: 3803: 2490: 2481: 1184: 1170: 1127: 1113: 1068: 786: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3698: 3671: 4182: 4181:

is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in

3963: 3949: 3588: 3473: 3459: 3445: 3435: 3341: 3288: 3234: 3220: 2969: 2890: 2876: 2751: 2737: 2574: 2517: 2503: 2343: 2270: 2256: 2190: 2133: 2119: 2053: 1996: 1982: 1969: 1960: 1916: 1858: 1844: 1775: 1718: 1704: 601: 38: 3772: 3555: 3496: 938: 934: 568: 495: 4459: 4059: 4002: 1597: 1581: 764: 425: 4126: 3697:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

1387: 3935: 3925: 549: 163: 4080: 2809: 1474: 3139: 1108:

Thanks, that's helpful. I didn't source the article comprehensively, so I'll rebuild based on your feedback.

4200: 4043: 3946:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 3879: 3756: 3456:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 3217:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 3131: 2873:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 2734:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 2500:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 2253:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 2116:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1979:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1841:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1701:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1382: 1300: 1285: 1180: 1166: 1123: 1109: 1064: 4072: 3450:

was described as "a landmark in trying to figure out how to transform the way humans relate to each other"?

2247:

as "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"?

1601:, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Knowledge (XXG). The 297: 272: 124:, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Knowledge (XXG). The 4354: 4298: 4280: 4240: 4224: 2622: 2605: 2297: 1570: 452: 219: 201: 3806: 752: 748: 254:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Seyfo+OR+Sayfo%22+genocide&hl=en&as_ylo=2010

4437: 4419: 4008:

Hmm, the article title does not seem to be neutral to me, since as you say, there is debate over this. (

3918: 3580: 3525: 3428: 3284: 3191: 2847: 2708: 2570: 2474: 2339: 2227: 2186: 2090: 2049: 1953: 1912: 1812: 1771: 1675: 1646: 941:. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Knowledge (XXG)'s readers! 739:- There are two problems with the list. First, and more seriously, it has no references, and so is not 715: 693: 648: 620: 394: 383: 3785: 3037: 2962: 3930:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 3440:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 3203:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2859:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2720:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2596:

Thank you for reviewing this page. Much appreciated. I've made changes to address the issue you noted

2486:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2385: 2381: 2239:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2102:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1965:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1824:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1687:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 4455: 3975: 3485: 3337: 3311: 3246: 2961:

of this article. I don't know how you concluded that it was a machine translation, but this is not a

2529: 2282: 2145: 2008: 1730: 1391: 1326: 894: 760: 556: 433: 429: 1607:

has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may

1334: 130:

has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may

4095: 4076: 3631: 2375: 2243: 2234: 410: 238:

and you were debating whether to use "seyfo/sayfo/assyrian genocide". I wasn't sure if using this

159: 158:

Congrats!! Will try to take another look at Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany FAC soon. –

4099: 4063: 4055: 3726: 3708: 1179:

And what do you generally do when the name of an institution is flagged as a copyright violation?

1060: 3752: 3607: 3544: 3351: 2902: 2763: 1616: 1296: 1281: 1045: 1027: 982: 963: 946: 871: 846: 796: 751:. If you provide the references, then the community can decide whether it should be deleted as 539: 328: 305: 189: 139: 514: 177: 4451: 4350: 4308: 4294: 4276: 4249: 4236: 4220: 4178: 3521: 3112: 3050: 2989: 2817: 2618: 2601: 2568:

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up!

2437:

Thanks, Buidhe! I have uploaded the images consistent, I believe, with your advice. Warmly, ~

2337:

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up!

2293: 2184:

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up!

2047:

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up!

1910:

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up!

1769:

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up!

1566: 215: 197: 3315:

was published. Is the rationale on Commons good enough, or do I need to investigate further?

2980: 2976: 2600:. Please would you tell me if I have managed to resolve it so that the tag can be removed? -- 1330: 993: 240:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=assyrian%20genocide,seyfo,sayfo

4415: 4365: 4313: 4254: 4104: 4009: 3566: 3559: 3507: 3500: 3391: 3365: 3321: 3150: 3127: 3062: 3012: 2667: 2656: 2417: 2410: 1642: 1624: 1409: 1357: 1318: 1233: 1194: 1137: 1088: 997: 926: 816: 736: 711: 689: 659: 644: 616: 611: 506: 499: 472: 147: 47: 17: 3722: 3684: 3041: 1329:

back then. Disregarding for a moment that their argument is tenuous as a glaring breach of

1084: 756: 4151: 4144: 3971: 3481: 3242: 2525: 2374:

ads that I would utilize for articles that will likely go through FAC. The ads, e.g., for

2278: 2141: 2004: 1871: 1726: 1552: 1221:

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

890: 252:

Another tip is that you can use the "OR" operator to deduplicate search results like this

1611:

to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,

1311: 510: 282: 134:

to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,

120: 104: 996:

is not optional and you should avoid moving controversial articles without discussion. (

4189: 3998: 3626: 1059:

Hi @Buidhe, I'm new to this and don't completely understand why the sections outlining

406: 3683:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

740: 3857: 3781: 3603: 3598: 3540: 3535: 3296: 2948: 2898: 2759: 2582: 2371: 2351: 2198: 2061: 1924: 1783: 1612: 1450: 1399: 1342: 1041: 1023: 978: 959: 942: 867: 841: 807: 791: 535: 530: 324: 301: 135: 2722:... that many international law experts and states doubt that extended occupations, 2598:

This article or section contains close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source

4185:. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with 3852:

See, this is exactly why I don't fancy the idea of granting a right to myself :D --

3594: 3531: 3108: 3104: 3045: 3000: 2984: 2813: 1229: 607: 593: 526: 4467: 4423: 4380: 4358: 4328: 4302: 4284: 4269: 4244: 4228: 4208: 4155: 4119: 4088: 4024: 3979: 3888: 3861: 3843: 3820: 3802:

autopatrolled, as it was bundled in with the admin toolkit. It was only unbundled

3760: 3638: 3611: 3548: 3489: 3400: 3380: 3358: 3330: 3300: 3250: 3165: 3143: 3116: 3077: 3055: 3027: 2994: 2912: 2821: 2773: 2682: 2660: 2626: 2609: 2586: 2533: 2446: 2432: 2397: 2355: 2301: 2286: 2202: 2149: 2065: 2012: 1928: 1875: 1787: 1734: 1650: 1628: 1574: 1532: 1454: 1424: 1403: 1372: 1346: 1304: 1289: 1248: 1209: 1188: 1174: 1152: 1131: 1117: 1103: 1072: 1031: 1012: 986: 967: 950: 912: 898: 875: 851: 831: 801: 768: 719: 697: 674: 652: 624: 561: 555:

Do you have plans on closing this review soon? Its been going on since September.

543: 487: 464: 437: 414: 376: 351: 332: 309: 265: 223: 205: 167: 151: 2732:

Template:Did you know nominations/Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine

4374: 4334: 4322: 4263: 4113: 4018: 3905: 3741:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

3415: 3386: 3374: 3316: 3259: 3178: 3159: 3071: 3021: 2921: 2834: 2782: 2695: 2676: 2652: 2542: 2461: 2426: 2311: 2214: 2158: 2110:

in 1996, "no serious observer believed that it met the criteria for membership"?

2077: 2021: 1940: 1884: 1799: 1743: 1662: 1620: 1418: 1366: 1242: 1203: 1146: 1097: 1006: 825: 744: 668: 481: 143: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

281:

What percentage of the data presented by Google Trends reflects the content of

4167: 4147: 3953: 3463: 3224: 2880: 2741: 2507: 2366: 2260: 2123: 1986: 1867: 1848: 1708: 291:

0.0%. None of the data presented by Google Trends represents reliable sources.

755:

or kept. The two places for articles with no references are draft space and

4051: 4047: 3994: 3704:

disambiguates zero extant Knowledge (XXG) pages, regardless of its title; or

3348:. Kahn died in 1940, making it public domain in Egypt and in the US afaict. 1225: 710:

I've now moved this back. If you feel so strongly about it, take it to AfD.

448: 236:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1026572059#Requested_move_27_May_2021

1589: 112: 505:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

3866: 3853: 3828: 3777: 3663:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

2979:

but then they've been contributing to the project for 16 years, so maybe

1446: 1395: 1383:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87&pws=0&tbm=bks

1352: 1338: 2036:

Your hook reached 12,767 views (1,068.4 per hour), making it one of the

1828: 1819: 579: 572: 3940:

include "blinding us to other types of humanly caused civilian death"?

3732:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

2557:

Your hook reached 11,880 views (495.0 per hour), making it one of the

2326:

Your hook reached 11,880 views (495.0 per hour), making it one of the

2173:

Your hook reached 10,767 views (448.6 per hour), making it one of the

1899:

Your hook reached 11,114 views (926.2 per hour), making it one of the

1758:

Your hook reached 13,948 views (581.2 per hour), making it one of the

1485: 4253:

since they have been significant contributors to the article prose. (

3274:

Your hook reached 8,128 views (677.3 per hour), making it one of the

2936:

Your hook reached 9,609 views (807.5 per hour), making it one of the

2797:

Your hook reached 7,662 views (638.5 per hour), making it one of the

1835:

causes a higher risk of trauma than any other known human experience?

1268:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Mount Melbourne/archive1

3587:

under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can

2871:

Template:Did you know nominations/Selective conscientious objection

1636:

Template:Did you know nominations/Ike for President (advertisement)

885:

Hi there! I thought I'd let you know that when you trim content in

600:

under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can

1691: 1682: 2114:

Template:Did you know nominations/Russia in the Council of Europe

3625:? We're unsure on what the correct procedure is in these cases. 3097: 3092:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

886: 864:

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at

271:

IP 2600: You may not use Google trends ever for determining the

2653:

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge'

4454:

to FA is incredibly impressive. I almost couldn't believe it!

3766:

Re: You have over 100,000 edits, why aren't you autopatrolled?

3215:

Template:Did you know nominations/Moral equality of combatants

2406:

happy to help, these ads are quite simple so I would just use

25: 2957:: there was a note attributing the original article from the 2808:

I saw that you red-linked Ralph Wilde in your article above.

2498:

Template:Did you know nominations/Externalization (migration)

4394: 3747: 3653: 3623:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Good article nominations#Federico Gatti

3454:

Template:Did you know nominations/Neither Settler nor Native

1977:

Template:Did you know nominations/Torture in popular culture

1484: 1277:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1259: 4405:

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the

4140:

Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen

3727:

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

323:

sure to exclude the OR from your quoted query expressions.

3944:

Template:Did you know nominations/The Problems of Genocide

747:

was giving you a chance to add references. Second, it is

314:

As a follow-up: your OR query was malformed: it should be

3991:

Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

3130:

article and others you worked, I wouldnt be surprised if

4346: 4039: 3834: 3096:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3008: 2958: 2955: 2689:

DYK for Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine

1562: 1322: 235: 193: 3798:

Not Buidhe, but to note that until December 2021, you

2867:

range from it being prohibited to morally obligatory?

2592:

Monica Asman religious sister and mosquito geneticist

2251:

Template:Did you know nominations/Crime of aggression

1443:

Talk:Milošević (surname)#Requested move 25 March 2022

3942: