User talk:Buidhe

Due to repeatedly receiving unsolicited email from a number of Wikipedia accounts, I've had to disable the feature. If you want me to make edits for you, be warned that I am not a meatpuppet. However, if you have a legitimate reason to email me, please post on this page and I'll enable it temporarily.
On a more positive note, I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you do, from incredibly (and likely incredibly difficult) content writing, to great (source and other) reviews, to well-thought out opinions in AFDs and other forums. Your work really makes Wikipedia a better place. Keep it up! Eddie891 Talk Work 02:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! :) (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Withers

Hi, are you returning to this page? Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pact of Free Cities

On 9 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pact of Free Cities, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the mayors of Prague, Bratislava, Warsaw, and Budapest signed the Pact of Free Cities in December 2019? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pact of Free Cities. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pact of Free Cities), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Parole der Woche

On 9 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Parole der Woche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Parole der Woche (Slogan of the Week; example pictured) has been described as "the most ubiquitous and intrusive aspect of Nazism’s visual offensive"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parole der Woche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Parole der Woche), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 12:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of True Pole

Hello! Your submission of True Pole 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! Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you take care of the inline cite for ALT0 hook fact please? Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Last notice. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shark Island concentration camp.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shark Island concentration camp.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kapo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Friedman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from ArnabSaha

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/University of Calcutta.
Message added 06:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I see you around a lot and thought you're doing pretty good, so here's a cookie! (It's my secret recipe.) FlalfTalk 14:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In Praise of Blood

Thought you might be interested in the author's opinion of the article about her book. [1] (The article looks well-balanced to me, but I know nothing of the subject matter) Just passing the conversation on. Schazjmd (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible collaboration for 1932 German presidential election

Hello,

I've worked on 1932 German presidential election, and was wondering if you'd like to collaborate and ultimately co-nom it for FA. I realize you might have other stuff on your schedule, but this seems like something you'd be interested in. Thanks for your consideration!

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• John M Wolfson Thanks for the offer, but as you guessed I'm working on other things (:. (t · c) buidhe 11:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Alright, take care. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Makuchowska + Pikulska

You might want to keep an eye on Mirosława Makuchowska and Katarzyna Pikulska, for notability and/or deletion issues, according to an active Wikipedian. Boud (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law

Hello! Your submission of Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 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! Yoninah (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please

I hate to put you on the spot, I know we don't know each other well, and you probably don't think that highly of me, but I am in real need, so I am asking anyway. I put Biblical criticism up for FA review a month ago. It is its second time being nominated. I failed to complete the process the first time because I left WP suddenly, and now it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Kresy myth

On 15 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kresy myth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Polish Kresy myth has been compared to the American myth of the Wild West and the German nostalgia for East Prussia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kresy myth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kresy myth), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Charlie (Street Fighter)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlie (Street Fighter). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Haleth (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust

Hello! Your submission of Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust 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! Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia women's national junior handball team

As closer, would you be so kind as to untag the list of articles attached to the discussion? XFDcloser doesn't seem to bother looking for additionally nominated pages. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 19:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Finngall After closing it, I checked a few of them, which did not have the banner. However, now I went through and made sure all the tags are removed. (t · c) buidhe 19:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Still several of these showing up at WP:BADAFD. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Chinese whispers/Telephone

While there is more support than opposition some of the support arguments are pretty strong (such as the sources produced by FOARP and the ATDAB arguments I made which RETAIN allows) I think at best that should have been "no consensus". Most of the support was due to RATAIN but as noted I showed how ATDAB allows this and the other main support point was that the term is offensive but it was noted that we aren't censored and "Chinese whispers" meets CRITERIA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Crouch I agree that you and other oppose !voters made some good points. However, considering that it was, by my count, 2:1 in favor of the move, the support arguments would have to be really weak for the discussion to be closed as "no consensus"—the majority of !voters clearly felt that the arguments in favor were more persuasive. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to point out the obvious here, but you're essentially saying "For the discussion to be closed as no consensus the arguments in favour would have to be weak, but those arguing in favour thought their arguments were strong , so they must have been". That isn't assessing consensus, that is simply counting votes and saying that the the arguments of the side with more must be more persuasive because they have more. How else are we supposed to understand the statement that "the majority of !voters clearly felt that the arguments in favor were more persuasive"? Because they felt strongly about it they must be right? FOARP (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• But I can't see how the support side is strong enough to close as consensus to move. Even though there was more support the arguments presented are less convincing I think "no consensus". The points made by the nominator were largely countered by FOARP's finding so I don't see any significant reasons for moving to counter the points for not moving. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• The closing statement was woefully inadequate. An explanation is required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Woefully inadequate close, and bad counting into the bargain. You are counting "support" !votes that were not actually supporting the proposed title. Revert please. FOARP (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see you've updated the page with a closing statement. The statement is clearly problematic. "The majority of editors, by about 2:1, consider that the reasons to oppose the name "Chinese whispers" are more persuasive than the arguments to support it." - an RM discussion is a discussion in favour of a new title, not a discussion about how much we dislike the old one. We cannot simply add up !votes that disagree with the present title if they were instead !votes for different titles.

You state that "WP:POVNAME generally only allows POV titles if "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources"...opposers of the move haven't shown that it is the name used "in a significant majority of English-language sources"" but this is exactly what was shown in the discussion - a significant majority of sources using the name Chinese Whispers, particularly in light of the fact that about half of the references in the corpus to "Telephone game" are not references to this particular game. If Chinese whispers is a POVNAME then "Telephone" is arguably also a POVNAME, so why doesn't the logic cut the other way? Finally, WP:POVNAME was not cited by anyone in the discussion so this is in essence not an assessment of the consensus (no-one actually said that Chinese Whispers was a POVNAME) but instead a super-vote.

Please revert and allow an admin closure. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple users actually expressed concern about the POV of the name, in slightly different words. All I am doing is quoting and applying the policy. If you thought telephone was a POV name you should have stated that in the discussion, yet that was not an argument made by any !voter. (t · c) buidhe 19:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You're saying that I should have argued against a point that was not raised in the discussion. If you wished to raise WP:POVNAME you should have cast a !vote. If you are applying the policy in spite of it not being raised then why didn't you take note of the evidence that "Chinese Whispers" was 30% more common in the Google Ngrams corpus than the two proposed names together (which shouldn't be the point of comparison since they are often used to refer to completely different things) and hence had been shown to be "the name used "in a significant majority of English-language sources""? FOARP (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree the point about POVNAME isn't that relevant since indeed it wasn't included in the discussion and the point about originally being under telephone variants was counted by RATAIN and ATDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you're close should take more into account the "the change reduces ambiguity" part of RETAIN and "Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we chose Elevator as the title of the article on the lifting device. since both of these favour keeping it at "Chinese whispers" even if it was first at "Telephone game" and the "Telephone (game)". "Chinese whispers" is unambiguous and clear, "Telephone (game)" requires a qualifier and "Telephone game" was also unacceptable to some people who favoured using "Telephone (game)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Holocaust and social media

On 17 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Holocaust and social media, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rhian Sugden, Priyanka Chopra, and Pete Buttigieg have all been the subject of controversy due to social-media photographs taken at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Holocaust and social media. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Holocaust and social media), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust denial/Double genocide theory

Hi, thanks for your work at those articles. Do you think a sentence about the theory could be at Holocaust denial? It is true "the sources cited don't describe any of these as a form of Holocaust denial, full stop", but Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial, hence why I added it in the first place, so maybe a sentence could be added to say that the double genocide theory is supported in Eastern Europe due to trivalising the Holocaust, i.e. that they "[i]n some former Eastern Bloc countries, Holocaust deniers do not deny the very fact of mass murder of Jews, but they deny the participation of their own nationals in the Holocaust" and perhaps it could be added, "proposing an equivalence, known as the double genocide theory, to equalize Communism and Nazism", or something like that. Davide King (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Davide King The issue here is that most sources define "Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements..." as stated in the lead of Holocaust denial. Obviously double genocide theory does not make any of those false statements. They aren't interested in claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, Auschwitz wasn't a death camp, or that Hitler didn't order the murder. At most, double genocide proponents deny the role of local collaborators—"the Holocaust happened, but our guys were not involved"—but even that isn't necessarily the case. Most sources I have read clearly make a distinction between denying the role of collaborators versus denying the genocide itself. Therefore, I would say it is more appropriate to discuss in Holocaust trivialization or maybe in a full-fledged article Holocaust uniqueness debate, or perhaps Holocaust distortion (which should not redirect to Holocaust denial as it is used to mean something different). (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  That makes sense, thanks! However, this should be clarified because Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial. My understanding is that revisionism is used as a cover for denial, as argued here. Davide King (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Hájková

On 18 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Hájková, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anna Hájková says her research into LGBT people and the Holocaust "shows a more complex, more human, and more real society beyond monsters and saints"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Hájková. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anna Hájková), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

You need to formulate your objection to the section on the talk page. Because it is not obvious what it is. And because of the 1R rule, you should self-revert. ImTheIP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why? I stated clearly that the content contains WP:OR. And I only made one revert. (t · c) buidhe 06:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Reinstating a previous edit counts as a second revert. Most of the section is quotes from Childers which is not OR. ImTheIP (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, both your large deletions were reverts. Regarding the article, I agree with you that it is a mess but that should be sorted out on the talk page. Zero^talk 07:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The first edit was revert to what version? The first edit even if its removal of the text that not recently added is considered an edit it was always the practice --Shrike (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shrike: The policy page defines a revert in one place as "to undo the action of another editor" and in another place "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". There is nothing about going back to a previous version; the "in part" makes that very clear. It is only necessary to put a part of the page back to a previous version, and that is obviously the page before the material was added. You are correct that sometimes people get away with not counting deletion of very old material as reverts, but if this went to AE it would be pot-luck whether that defense would work since technically there is no time limit. Personally I wouldn't take the chance. Zero^talk 13:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, now both Zero and I have asked you to kindly revert as you breached the 1R rule. You have been editing other pages during the day and have ignored our urging. That is not collegial of you. If you have a minute to spare, please self-revert your edit. ImTheIP (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

He didn't breached anything it was never enforced in that way and to what version was his first "revert"?--Shrike (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A revert does not have to be to a version. I proved it above and that is normal practice. Zero^talk 21:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ImTheIP (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Capitalism

I don't know if slavery and genocide are good examples. Modern slavery and racism are both products of early capitalism. TFD (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Victims of Communist Memorial Foundation

Could you please tell me your thoughts on this revert? They wrote that "talking about 'achievements under Communism' (to be neutral one would have to add details about the 'failures of Communism', but presenting POVs about Communism is not the purpose of this article" but the "failures of Communism" are already discussed as part of the death toll, so to respect NPOV we would need o report scholarly analysis disagreeing with this victims of Communism narrative. In addition, "presenting POVs about Communism is not the purpose of this article" but that is exactly what the article does in presenting the organisation's POV without any scholarly rebuttals. I also dispute their claims of synthesis because this narrative discussed by both sources is proposed by the organisation itself and the name itself of "victims of Communism" comes from the organisation, so it is relevant, NPOV and due. Nonetheless, since you seem well-informed about the topic, I think it would be helpful if you could state your thoughts. Even if my edit was rightly reverted, we should not present only the organisation's POV. This was my attempt at doing that and perhaps you can do it in a better way I did. Davide King (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Telephone (game)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Telephone (game). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Buidhe,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

DYK for Inwazja

On 20 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inwazja, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Polish public-television film Invasion "depicted LGBT rights activists as a foreign-backed threat to Polish children, religion, values, and the very biological continuation of the nation"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inwazja. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Inwazja), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Keep Talking (group)

On 21 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keep Talking (group), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British conspiracy-theory and Holocaust-denial group Keep Talking unites the far right and far left? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Keep Talking (group). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Keep Talking (group)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion:In praise of Blood

Good morning. Please see the talk page for in praise of blood. I would be grateful for your view. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Not even past, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Ryan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nazi racial theories

Regarding your undiscussed move of the article above from Nazism and race, do you realize that there exists another article, Racial policy of Nazi Germany? In what way do Nazi racial theories differ from their policies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken There is a distinction between racial theories (theoretical understanding of who was designated an "inferior race") and racial policies (discriminatory policies based on such bogus theories). Policies were affected by pragmatism as well as race theory, for instance the nations that agreed to ally with Nazis were treated better. "Nazism and race" is too vague for the article content—which focuses on racial theories—as well as violating WP:AND ("avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism""). (t · c) buidhe 09:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I accept your argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Living instrument doctrine

Hello! Your submission of Living instrument doctrine 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! Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the reviewer responded nearly 2 weeks ago. Are you returning to this nomination or should we mark it for closure as unsuccessful? Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah as I stated in the nomination, I believe that fulfilling the directions for what the reviewer considers NPOV would itself create an issue of undue weight to the perspectives he wants to be elaborated on. The article already discusses prominent criticisms of the doctrine. (t · c) buidhe 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll ask for a new reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Die Schutzbefohlenen

Hi again. The nominator has been waiting for your reply on her alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law

On 23 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law was intended to punish Holocaust survivors rather than Holocaust perpetrators? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Jewish escapees from Nazi concentration camps has been nominated for merging

Category:Jewish escapees from Nazi concentration camps has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

URFA

Hey, Buidhe, thanks for all your work ! I removed your last few entries at WP:URFA/2020 for the following reasons. We have over 4,000 FAs to get through, and I don't want the page to turn into something similar to what happened at Dweller's page. If everyone runs through putting in comments about minor issues, we'll make no progress on the overall picture. It will be more effective if you will either enter comments on the article talk page, or ping still-active nominators, and then just include a diff on the URFA page for future reviewers to know who said what when and where, and be able to check what progress has been made. Follow this as an example. Dweller's page didn't work for this very reason. We basically need to know here not what minor issues there are, but whether something has been posted on talk and whether we need to proceed to the next step, be that FAR or moving to the Satisfactory list. Just a diff to the talk page will work out best in the long run. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See my additions on your edits. I don't want us to end up again in no-man's-land as most of Dweller's page did ... either "Satisfactory" or "FAR". Most require only a diff that you have notified talk. But if you think an article can avoid FAR and is satisfactory (good enough), then just enter "Satisfactory" followed by your sig. If enough people agree, we'll move them off the list ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Lessons & Legacies

@Buidhe: Hi there. I do not at all object to your change/reversion of my edit to the L&L page, but I do not know for sure that the "conference papers" that the header mentions are the same thing as the series that NUP publishes. It's entirely possible, probable, that they're related, but, technically speaking, if the organizer is distributing conference papers in some Open Access form and NUP is publishing an edited collection of the same material (sort of), those may be mostly the same. But as with many published dissertations, they can differ, sometimes quite a lot. To an extent, I'm not sure it's worth the time to contact the editors and have someone adjudicate the question, but I think you've made an assumption. Nigetastic (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• AFAIK the conference papers are never distributed in any other form. Worldcat says the books are conference proceedings as well. It wouldn't make sense to distribute open-access as that would probably ruin the market for the books of proceedings. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Buidhe: You've done the research, and I'll gladly take your word for it. Thank you. But it's quite common for open-access and for-sale editions to exist simultaneously. Enough scholars want a hard copy of something they've used online that, assuming their department is paying for it, you'd be surprised, you can sell a couple hundred copies of something you're simultaneously giving away. Nigetastic (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A round of applause for your work

	a round of applause...
	...for your creation of the article Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust. I found this to be a really fascinating topic, I had known intermarriage between Jews and Germans was illegal, but I had never thought about what had happened to those who were married before the Nuremberg Laws took effect. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 01:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your bold improvements to Armenian Genocide — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Germans of Romania

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Rawandiz massacre

Hi!

How can I create a page regarding Rawandiz massacre? It is necessary because 1) Rawandiz page is being vandalised 2) extermination of 80% of an area is notable enough to have its own page. I saw you on revision history of wiki pages about massacres and genocides and i need an experienced editor's guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, without registering an account you can't start a page in mainspace but you could make a draft at Draft:Rawandiz massacre, which would later be moved to the article space. Be careful to cite only reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it is being vandalised at the moment by a certain user and an ip (probably the same person). Where can i report those vandalisms?

• I already reported it at the Requests for page protection. Thanks for your contributions! (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This user (Ashuraya145) uses ips to vandalise the page. Is there a place to report this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:Sockpuppet investigations. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you follow the page? Ashuraya and his ip keep censoring the content with irrelevant excuses ("Russians betrayed Assyrians", etc.) According to the source, there was a massacre and there were perpetrators of this massacre who were named by the source. For some reason, it is being removed repeatedly with various excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.247.214 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I know that. It would be helpful if you continued this discussion on the talk page Talk:Rawandiz, preferably providing additional sources to corroborate the account of Assyrian participation in the massacre. (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do more research about this topic. Before that, the vandalism on this page should stop. I already reported Ashuraya145 on the page you suggested above (Sockpuppet investigations).

Victims of Communism

In my honest view, those comments show why we you did a good job at creating Double genocide theory and why it would be an improvement Mass killings under communist regimes into Victims of Communism, for which I can help in a sandbox or draft to see how it would be like but I would need some outlined-structure and literature first. As I repeatedly wrote at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, Mass killings under communist regimes is not only problematic for mixing all the topics I listed, among other NPOV and synthesis violations, but it is actively harmful in promoting those views which are revisionist and fringe in academia and scholarship as mainstream views. Since those views are popular among the news media and the general population, especially in the Anglo-sphere and in Eastern Europe, it is especially important they are not replicated as they reflect systematic bias of favour of the aforementioned popular literature among the public but fringe within scholarship. The same thing is now happening at Victims of Communist Memorial Foundation, where scholarly analysis is presented as criticism and "[c]alling it criticism is giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views." I was a victim of this because I thought those were mainstream views within academia and scholarship; having those article as they currently are is not only unhelpful but it is actively harmful in implying those are mainstream, rather than fringe, views. I am the proof of this. Davide King (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Offending religious feelings.
Message added 10:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hi buidhe, when I first started Wikipedia you gave me a warm welcome. I'd like to return the favor with these cookies! ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 12:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pageswap

Hi!

This is to continue the conversation begun at Talk:Battleground: Ardennes#Requested move 18 November 2020.

There doesn't seem to me to have been any need to swap the page histories.

Andy M. Wang, you've said you're inactive but as the creator and as far as I can see the only maintainer of this script, your comments would be very helpful I think. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Andrewa I don't know what you want me to have done? Copy and paste moves are not allowed and there's no way to overwrite a redirect automatically. I could have requested deletion per WP:G6, but that seems like pointless waste of admin time, when there are many admin backlogs. (t · c) buidhe 12:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's get to that later. For the moment, I just want to see whether this is an appropriate use of pageswap. If it's not then we need to look at what should have happened. If it is then I think the documentation needs to be provided so everyone can use it appropriately. But first things first.
  • Apart from the fact that you didn't have the necessary authority to delete the target, was there any other reason to use pageswap? Andrewa (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was the quickest and easiest way to accomplish the move. Is there any other reason to use it? (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that it was. It had other consequences. The RM did not mention swapping the page histories, and you are unable to clean this up even if you wished to do so.
      • So I repeat my question from here: Where is this use of pageswap documented? I'm eager to learn. Where did you find out about it? Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Air pollution in Turkey

Hi, I offered a new hook. Could you review it please? Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In Praise of Blood

Hello! Your submission of In Praise of Blood 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! Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Historical policy of Law and Justice.
Message added 13:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Amsterdam University Press books

A tag has been placed on Category:Amsterdam University Press books requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Post-conflict reception of war criminals

On 30 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Post-conflict reception of war criminals, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the architect of the Armenian genocide, Talaat Pasha, is buried under a monument (pictured) dedicated to "heroes of the fatherland"? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Post-conflict reception of war criminals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say kudos for getting this DYK approved. It's unusual to see something that striking make it onto the main page, and it passes the criterion 90% of DYKs fail of being actually interesting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This was a brilliant article and a fascinating read. Thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Odd deletions from WP:DYKN

Buidhe, I've just been going through a list of untranscluded DYK nominations, and came across two that you simply removed from the Nominations page on November 21:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Micromégas
• Template:Did you know nominations/Meat and Livestock Australia

This is not how nominations should be closed, because simply deleting the transclusion means that the nomination is still considered open by various areas of the DYK processes.

The process on how failed nominations should be closed out is at WP:DYKN#How to remove a rejected hook; I have taken the liberty of rejecting the second of these nominations, but retaining and relisting the Micromégas one since this is a student contribution from a class that is still open, and the article may still be further expanded and improved. (We have a bot that automatically removes closed nominations, both closed as successful—at the time of promotion—and as unsuccessful: it runs every two hours.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on Armenian Genocide article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be.

Although there is a notice there that "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" you have actually made multiple reverts under the guise of one edit (22:08, 29 November 2020)‎ in which you undid many edits contributed by another Wikipedia editor.

Points to note:

1. Wikipedia articles are no one's personal property, and such attitudes contradict with Wikipedia's editorial policies.
2. The need to reach consensus does not mean that a user can unreasonably obstruct and/or impose a de facto censorship on contributions by other users unless it is reasonably proven that those contributions are in breach of Wikipedia's editorial policies. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I want to thank you for your writing over the Germany's role in the Armenian Genocide and the way you provided insight information of what happened back in 1915. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad you appreciate it! (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP violations in category

I noticed you recently removed a category describing a living person as a genocide denier. Category:Bosnian Genocide deniers is full of identical BLP violations. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Amanuensis Balkanicus, yeah, I would !vote to delete that category at CfD. It is indeed a magnet for BLP issues and is unlikely to be defining for hardly anyone. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seyfo

Hi Buidhe,

I fully agree with renaming the article to Seyfo a more accepted term in the historian world. I'm new to wikipedia and I see already a lot of (probably) Assyrian nationalists making disruptive POV edits on the page. Could you please revert the disruptive edits made by the users on that page! 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepoeko (talk • contribs)

Hi Buidhe,

I see that your edit is once again reverted, again by Assyrian nationalists. The user States that Assyrian is the umbrella term for all Syriac-Arameans and Chaldeans which totally is not true. The same user is opposing a page about the modern Aramean people for several months already to fullfill his agenda most probably.

I think you do have a lot of knowledge on topics like these. I would ask you to join the RFC on the page Arameans so that a page about the modern Arameans will be created besides the already existing page about the ancient people. Pepoeko (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Late Ottoman genocides, is a historiographical theory which claims that the concurrent Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides were a single event rather than separate events, and it sometimes includes the earlier Hamidian massacres of Armenians, in the same event: persecution of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. It is argued by different historians and other books. Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934) was a population transfer event, not a genocidal event. Is there a reason why the edit been deleted?. Eliko007 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, as one of the sources you cited says: "Jakob Künzler’s observation is of uttermost importance. It reveals that the Kurds were deeply affected by Young Turkish population and extermination policies and subject to social engineering already before the establishment of a Turkish nation state by Mustafa Kemal in 1922.6 The discussion of the question whether the deportation and forced assimilation of Kurds by the Young Turks has to be labelled as genocide or ethnocide is, at least from a historian’s perspective, irrelevant since a clarification of this particularly legal and political issue depends on the definition of genocide one resorts to.7 It is, however, important to acknowledge that the Young Turkish leaders aimed at eliminating Kurdish identity by deporting them from their ancestral land and by dispersing them in small groups. The Young Turks partially implemented these plans during World War I: up to 700,000 Kurds were forcibly removed; half of the displaced perished. This important but often neglected fact has consequences for our understanding of the terrible fate of minorities in the late Ottoman Empire. It suggests that the fate of none of those groups, be they Christian as the Armenians, Assyrians or Greek, or be they Muslim as the Kurds, can be treated in isolation." I don't think it's necessary to mention Kurds in the lead, but reducing it to "Christians" is not supported by the cited sources, so I hoped my wording would be concise and match the source material. (t · c) buidhe 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, I don't see that sentence as inconsistent with sources, the sentence cited two specific groups (Assyrians and Greeks), and their treatment (Armenians and Assyrians and Greeks) is considered by some historians to be part of the same genocidal campaigns and policy against its Christian subjects. For example according to the scholar Adam Jones: "A resolution was placed before the IAGS membership to recognize the Greek and Assyrian/Chaldean components of the Ottoman genocide against Christians, alongside the Armenian strand of the genocide (which the IAGS has already formally acknowledged).", some sources such as The Thirty-Year Genocide which argues That the Hamidian massacres, Armenian Genocide, Assyrian genocide] and Greek genocide should be understood as a single event which targeted all the Christian minorities in the Ottoman empire. Also, the Deportations of Kurds as part of Late Ottoman genocides is not included by all historians or scholars, Have a nice day.Eliko007 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Buidhe,

The same user named User:Sargon Gallu is making disruptive edits on the page Seyfo. It seems like the user is pushing an Assyrian POV since he states on his own userpage that he belongs to the Assyrian nation and thus is not neutral in making any edits regarding the topic. Pepoeko (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it’s unfortunate that you feel that way. If you disagree with me on a topic, then feel free to use my talk page and make an effort to discuss the topic before reporting it. My ethnic roots does not change anything as I can argue for my edits and defend them Sargon Gallu (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Pepoeko now accuses another user of editing in a certain way because of his ethnicity, and clearly has learnt nothing from his two-week ban. In my previous dealings with admins, that accusation is grounds for a more permanent block (see here). Mugsalot (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

user:Sargon Gallu that’s not how it works. Buidhe did repeat several times that the Assyrians Syriacs and Chaldeans should be listed as different groups. Yet you keep pushing your point of view without adding any sources to that these groups fall under the Assyrian umbrella, which isn’t even true.

user:Mugsalot it seems like you are looking for reasons to get me blocked by an administrator, since you were also reporting me for vandalism without any valid reason. It can clearly be seen that Assyrian propaganda is ruling on Wikipedia thus its nothing wrong to mention. I see both you and user Sargon Gallu removing other ethnic names and replacing them with Assyrian. So yes from both of your edits it seems that there is a political agenda behind. user:ToBeFree I really understood the 2 weeks banning on the page Syriac Orthodox Church. But from what I see on Wikipedia there is an ongoing Assyrian sect removing names as Syriac and Chaldean and replacing them with ‘Assyrian’ this is a view that is highly pushed by Assyrian nationalists and thus has no place for a neutral platform like Wikipedia.Pepoeko (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Pepoeko I don't agree that you should be blocked at this point, but please remember to focus on the content, not the contributor: that is a key Wikipedia rule. If people are systematically changing names to "Assyrian" in a way that's not supported by the sources, that's a behavior issue, and their ethnic identity or political opinion (Assyrian nationalism) is irrelevant. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

True, you have a point there I’m new to Wikipedia so I’m trying to learn more about the rules etc. But even tho without providing reliable and variant sources your edit on Seyfo was reverted back again by Sargon Gallu without providing any reliable arguments. So I conclude that Sargon Gallu his edit (not he as an user) is a pushed POV. :) Pepoeko (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I don't question your good intentions, but you seem to be unfamiliar with this area on Wikipedia. It is a frequent target for users such as Pepoeko who challenge the consensus in favour of their POV and are inevitably revealed as sockpuppets (see Arameans edit history). Pepoeko has already been blocked for two weeks for edit warring, and in my experience his accusations are grounds for a more long-term block.

Pepoeko, you claim to understand your block and yet you argue your reporting for vandalism, which led to your block, was achieved 'without any valid reason'. Mugsalot (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think in fact Buidhe is very familiar with this area of Wikipedia. The Assyrian term is not an umbrella term for all these Christians neither is it an accepted term for Syriacs or Chaldeans. As far as i know I’m blocked because you kept reverting the article without providing any reliable sources, not because I vandalized the page since I provided sources and only added the name of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the Syriac language.Pepoeko (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally you're supposed to AGF that a new user is not a sockpuppet until that has been shown to be the case. If you have evidence, go to SPI, otherwise drop it. My understanding is that the terms for Syriac Christians / the group claimed by Assyrian nationalism are both contested, and that should be reflected in our articles based on the preponderance of reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mugsalot and Buidhe: "Assyrian sect", "political agenda", bah. Sorry for not having done a full block initially, and thanks for the ping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust

On 3 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at least 90 percent of intermarried spouses in Nazi Germany and Austria refused to divorce Jewish partners despite intimidation by the Gestapo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Intermarried Jews in the Holocaust), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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 December 2020 (UTC)

Note

Hey buidhe, I don't think we agree on everything, but I think we can probably agree on what's going on at In Praise of Blood, and if you want to escalate that to ANI, please ping me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)