I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
CS1 error on Garetosmab
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Garetosmab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war 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
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Catlemur --
Catlemur (
talk) 01:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Buidhe
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna ( talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Buidhe,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I want a clarification about this edit because you have changed more than removing the IDF flag from the infobox but reverting other edits as well, contrary to your edit summary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk · contri.) 23:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sameboat I don't know what went wrong here, I only meant to remove the flag. ( t · c) buidhe 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transgender people in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in just one night, thousands of books on the experiences and medical care of transgender people in Nazi Germany were burned (pictured) for being "un-German"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender people in Nazi Germany. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Transgender people in Nazi Germany), 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.
— Kusma ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 12,314 views (1,026.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for your work on the article, also featured on Portal:Germany. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I know you quite often patrol and correct pages of genocides, and was seeing if you thought the infobox for the Armenian Genocide page looked adequate? Reaper1945 ( talk) 03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have been opposed to having an infobox there for a long time because most of the fields are oversimplified or at least somewhat disputed (death toll, location, time) depending on which events are counted as part of the genocide. Reducing "perpetrators" to the CUP or Ottoman state is rather simplistic, given widespread popular participation in aspects of the genocide even by non-Ottomans—for example, Iranian Kurds if you count killings in Iran. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that part about the perpetrators, as similar to the Holocaust, while it was mainly Germany, a lot of it was carried out by its allies and local collaborators, so maybe something similar can be put for perpetrators? Also, the timeline is a bit wonky, but the most commonly stated, as provided by the Holocaust Museum as well, is 1915 to 1916.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can live with those dates, but Suny and some others say it ended in early 1917. What's your source for 1915-1916 being the most common? (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The sources for the date of 1915 to 1916 are listed here.
[1]
[2]
[3] However, I see other sources listing it from 1915 to 1923, so as you said, the dates are complicated to pin down and interpret.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- On top of the comment above, I may have misinterpreted "most common", as I see there's no agreed upon end date. Whether 1915–1917, 1915–1916, or 1915–1923. Reaper1945 ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The sources for the date of 1915 to 1916 are listed here.
[1]
[2]
[3] However, I see other sources listing it from 1915 to 1923, so as you said, the dates are complicated to pin down and interpret.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can live with those dates, but Suny and some others say it ended in early 1917. What's your source for 1915-1916 being the most common? (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that part about the perpetrators, as similar to the Holocaust, while it was mainly Germany, a lot of it was carried out by its allies and local collaborators, so maybe something similar can be put for perpetrators? Also, the timeline is a bit wonky, but the most commonly stated, as provided by the Holocaust Museum as well, is 1915 to 1916.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand this . Cause of death, if known, is pretty essential to any encyclopedia biography, no? Hardly trivial. Nirva20 ( talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nirva20, please look up WP:NONDEF again. The standard for categories is not "not trivia". Death categories are are widely overused because the cause of death is rarely the reason someone is notable. ( t · c) buidhe 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- ^ "The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth". encyclopedia.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
- ^ Bloxham, Donald (2003). "The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1916: Cumulative Radicalization and the Development of a Destruction Policy". Past & Present (181): 141–191. ISSN 0031-2746.
- ^ "Eliminating an Existential Threat: the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1916". www.wilsoncenter.org. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
Dear Buidhe, I am writing this message in recollection that some time ago you had suggested that an article I had nominated for a DYK be nominated to be listed as a GA. The article is to a large extent a translation into English of a Greek Wikipedia article that has been recognized there as a FA. I think that it fulfills the criteria for the English Wikipedia as well and I am thus considering a FA nomination. As this is my first FA nomination in the English version of the encyclopedia, I followed the suggestion (which I found here) that I seek the mentorship of an experienced user, but there has been no response at all for the past few days and weeks from neither of the users I contacted. I am wondering whether you could perhaps provide some help in this regard and in particular with whether it would be advisable to go ahead with a FA nomination without first submitting a GA nomination for this article. With many thanks in advance for your response, which I am sure to greatly appreciate, Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Ashmedai 119 while I don't know if a FAC would be successful at this point, it is likely to go more smoothly (especially as a first time nominator) if you go through GAN first. The criteria are not the same on enwiki as elwiki. Also, you will need access to most of the article's sources to verify content or make changes as necessary without compromising text-source integrity. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your advice. I have now submitted a GA nomination, as per your suggestion. I do have access to -if I don't miss something- all of the article's sources, as I happen to be the user who had most heavily contributed to the writing of the original Greek article. Many thanks once more, Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 19:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| 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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I want to use the file "Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg" for the Vietnamese version of the article "Tra tấn." Can I download this copyrighted image for the Vietnamese Wikipedia project and use it in the article on "Tra tấn" in Vietnamese Wikipedia? Thank you! Phong Dang ( talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Phong Dang You should be able to download the image and may be able to upload the image on Vietnamese Wikipedia, I do not know your wiki's specific image upload and copyright rules. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- What about copyright issues? Can I download this photo to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright as the English Wikipedia version and use it in the Vietnamese Wikipedia?
Phong Dang (
talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Phong Dang I'm not familiar with the copyright rules for Vietnamese Wikipedia, I would look
here and
here for more information, but I don't speak Vietnamese so I'm not much help, sorry. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries! Thank you for trying. Phong Dang ( talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Phong Dang I'm not familiar with the copyright rules for Vietnamese Wikipedia, I would look
here and
here for more information, but I don't speak Vietnamese so I'm not much help, sorry. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- What about copyright issues? Can I download this photo to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright as the English Wikipedia version and use it in the Vietnamese Wikipedia?
Phong Dang (
talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
- IEEE and Haaretz now available
- Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
- Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on your claim that labor camps are a completely different concept if the name is translated into German. The two citations are a now-offline Polish blog post and a link to an article that doesn't support your assertion. Do you have anything backing up your assertion, or are you just using your power to perpetuate garbage? Shankar Sivarajan ( talk) 02:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shankarsivarajan I am not sure what you mean by "completely different concept". As the Wikipedia article Nazi concentration camps makes it clear, the KZ was an organization; other camps run by the Nazi state were not part of the KZ system and were administered by different organizations. There were just over 1,000 concentration camps including sub camps, but many thousands of forced labor camps. They are covered in separate volumes of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. [1]
- Unfortunately, your decision to redirect the article messed up a lot of links. I hope you understand why that is not good for the encyclopedia. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 02:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That article does not make it clear, but it's probable that there were a few different organizations running different concentration camps, many of which had forced labor. Being run by different organizations doesn't make them meaningfully different. My redirect fixed a lot of links, and your revert is what's "not good for the encyclopedia." But I recognize you have more power and influence than me, so your version will stand.
Shankar Sivarajan (
talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The fact is that camps run by different Nazi authorities may at times have had similar conditions, but often the conditions were not similar at all (you can compare the <10% mortality rate for civilian forced laborers, vs. >60% for KZ prisoners...) So not just the administration, but other aspects could be very different. Furthermore, the conditions in other camps are NOT covered in the forced labor in Nazi concentration camps article, making this a wholly inappropriate link. ( t · c) buidhe 02:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That article does not make it clear, but it's probable that there were a few different organizations running different concentration camps, many of which had forced labor. Being run by different organizations doesn't make them meaningfully different. My redirect fixed a lot of links, and your revert is what's "not good for the encyclopedia." But I recognize you have more power and influence than me, so your version will stand.
Shankar Sivarajan (
talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.
|
| This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CS1 error on Garetosmab
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Garetosmab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war 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
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Catlemur --
Catlemur (
talk) 01:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Buidhe
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna ( talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Buidhe,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I want a clarification about this edit because you have changed more than removing the IDF flag from the infobox but reverting other edits as well, contrary to your edit summary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk · contri.) 23:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sameboat I don't know what went wrong here, I only meant to remove the flag. ( t · c) buidhe 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transgender people in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in just one night, thousands of books on the experiences and medical care of transgender people in Nazi Germany were burned (pictured) for being "un-German"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender people in Nazi Germany. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Transgender people in Nazi Germany), 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.
— Kusma ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 12,314 views (1,026.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
|
| |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for your work on the article, also featured on Portal:Germany. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I know you quite often patrol and correct pages of genocides, and was seeing if you thought the infobox for the Armenian Genocide page looked adequate? Reaper1945 ( talk) 03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have been opposed to having an infobox there for a long time because most of the fields are oversimplified or at least somewhat disputed (death toll, location, time) depending on which events are counted as part of the genocide. Reducing "perpetrators" to the CUP or Ottoman state is rather simplistic, given widespread popular participation in aspects of the genocide even by non-Ottomans—for example, Iranian Kurds if you count killings in Iran. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that part about the perpetrators, as similar to the Holocaust, while it was mainly Germany, a lot of it was carried out by its allies and local collaborators, so maybe something similar can be put for perpetrators? Also, the timeline is a bit wonky, but the most commonly stated, as provided by the Holocaust Museum as well, is 1915 to 1916.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can live with those dates, but Suny and some others say it ended in early 1917. What's your source for 1915-1916 being the most common? (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The sources for the date of 1915 to 1916 are listed here.
[1]
[2]
[3] However, I see other sources listing it from 1915 to 1923, so as you said, the dates are complicated to pin down and interpret.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- On top of the comment above, I may have misinterpreted "most common", as I see there's no agreed upon end date. Whether 1915–1917, 1915–1916, or 1915–1923. Reaper1945 ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The sources for the date of 1915 to 1916 are listed here.
[1]
[2]
[3] However, I see other sources listing it from 1915 to 1923, so as you said, the dates are complicated to pin down and interpret.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can live with those dates, but Suny and some others say it ended in early 1917. What's your source for 1915-1916 being the most common? (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that part about the perpetrators, as similar to the Holocaust, while it was mainly Germany, a lot of it was carried out by its allies and local collaborators, so maybe something similar can be put for perpetrators? Also, the timeline is a bit wonky, but the most commonly stated, as provided by the Holocaust Museum as well, is 1915 to 1916.
Reaper1945 (
talk) 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand this . Cause of death, if known, is pretty essential to any encyclopedia biography, no? Hardly trivial. Nirva20 ( talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nirva20, please look up WP:NONDEF again. The standard for categories is not "not trivia". Death categories are are widely overused because the cause of death is rarely the reason someone is notable. ( t · c) buidhe 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- ^ "The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth". encyclopedia.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
- ^ Bloxham, Donald (2003). "The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1916: Cumulative Radicalization and the Development of a Destruction Policy". Past & Present (181): 141–191. ISSN 0031-2746.
- ^ "Eliminating an Existential Threat: the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1916". www.wilsoncenter.org. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
Dear Buidhe, I am writing this message in recollection that some time ago you had suggested that an article I had nominated for a DYK be nominated to be listed as a GA. The article is to a large extent a translation into English of a Greek Wikipedia article that has been recognized there as a FA. I think that it fulfills the criteria for the English Wikipedia as well and I am thus considering a FA nomination. As this is my first FA nomination in the English version of the encyclopedia, I followed the suggestion (which I found here) that I seek the mentorship of an experienced user, but there has been no response at all for the past few days and weeks from neither of the users I contacted. I am wondering whether you could perhaps provide some help in this regard and in particular with whether it would be advisable to go ahead with a FA nomination without first submitting a GA nomination for this article. With many thanks in advance for your response, which I am sure to greatly appreciate, Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Ashmedai 119 while I don't know if a FAC would be successful at this point, it is likely to go more smoothly (especially as a first time nominator) if you go through GAN first. The criteria are not the same on enwiki as elwiki. Also, you will need access to most of the article's sources to verify content or make changes as necessary without compromising text-source integrity. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your advice. I have now submitted a GA nomination, as per your suggestion. I do have access to -if I don't miss something- all of the article's sources, as I happen to be the user who had most heavily contributed to the writing of the original Greek article. Many thanks once more, Ashmedai 119 ( talk) 19:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
| 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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I want to use the file "Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg" for the Vietnamese version of the article "Tra tấn." Can I download this copyrighted image for the Vietnamese Wikipedia project and use it in the article on "Tra tấn" in Vietnamese Wikipedia? Thank you! Phong Dang ( talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Phong Dang You should be able to download the image and may be able to upload the image on Vietnamese Wikipedia, I do not know your wiki's specific image upload and copyright rules. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- What about copyright issues? Can I download this photo to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright as the English Wikipedia version and use it in the Vietnamese Wikipedia?
Phong Dang (
talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Phong Dang I'm not familiar with the copyright rules for Vietnamese Wikipedia, I would look
here and
here for more information, but I don't speak Vietnamese so I'm not much help, sorry. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries! Thank you for trying. Phong Dang ( talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Phong Dang I'm not familiar with the copyright rules for Vietnamese Wikipedia, I would look
here and
here for more information, but I don't speak Vietnamese so I'm not much help, sorry. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 03:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- What about copyright issues? Can I download this photo to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright as the English Wikipedia version and use it in the Vietnamese Wikipedia?
Phong Dang (
talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
- IEEE and Haaretz now available
- Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
- Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on your claim that labor camps are a completely different concept if the name is translated into German. The two citations are a now-offline Polish blog post and a link to an article that doesn't support your assertion. Do you have anything backing up your assertion, or are you just using your power to perpetuate garbage? Shankar Sivarajan ( talk) 02:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shankarsivarajan I am not sure what you mean by "completely different concept". As the Wikipedia article Nazi concentration camps makes it clear, the KZ was an organization; other camps run by the Nazi state were not part of the KZ system and were administered by different organizations. There were just over 1,000 concentration camps including sub camps, but many thousands of forced labor camps. They are covered in separate volumes of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. [1]
- Unfortunately, your decision to redirect the article messed up a lot of links. I hope you understand why that is not good for the encyclopedia. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 02:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That article does not make it clear, but it's probable that there were a few different organizations running different concentration camps, many of which had forced labor. Being run by different organizations doesn't make them meaningfully different. My redirect fixed a lot of links, and your revert is what's "not good for the encyclopedia." But I recognize you have more power and influence than me, so your version will stand.
Shankar Sivarajan (
talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The fact is that camps run by different Nazi authorities may at times have had similar conditions, but often the conditions were not similar at all (you can compare the <10% mortality rate for civilian forced laborers, vs. >60% for KZ prisoners...) So not just the administration, but other aspects could be very different. Furthermore, the conditions in other camps are NOT covered in the forced labor in Nazi concentration camps article, making this a wholly inappropriate link. ( t · c) buidhe 02:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That article does not make it clear, but it's probable that there were a few different organizations running different concentration camps, many of which had forced labor. Being run by different organizations doesn't make them meaningfully different. My redirect fixed a lot of links, and your revert is what's "not good for the encyclopedia." But I recognize you have more power and influence than me, so your version will stand.
Shankar Sivarajan (
talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)